How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies.
Research on consumers’ reaction to corporate response to negative publicity
Sten Boerkamp – 306442
Economics and Business Economics
Master Marketing
Erasmus School of Economics
Erasmus University Rotterdam
First reader and thesis supervisor: Ms. I. Versluis
September 2014
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Abstract
Companies facing negative publicity have to decide whether or not they should respond, and if so, in
what manner. In this thesis two different response strategies and a No response scenario are tested
for a well-known and a less-known cola brand. It is found that consumers have significantly lower
brand attitudes and likelihood to buy in all scenarios. For the well-known brand, Coca Cola in the
experiment, it is important to respond to the publicity to minimise damage. The Adaptation of new
processes strategy, a strong effort of a company involving a confirmation of the risks and a change of
the production process, did not outperform the Denial of severity strategy. The latter strategy
consist of a confirmation of the presence of disputed ingredients, but includes a strong denial on the
alleged risks they form. In other words, the company states there is nothing to worry about. For lessknown cola brand First Choice, responding to the news did not have a dampening effect on the
change in consumer brand attitudes.
The proposed model introduces a direct effect of brand familiarity and moderating effects of source
credibility and perceived article negativity. Brand familiarity does not have any predictive power on
the change in brand attitudes. The credibility of the source does have a significant impact;
consumers who perceive the source as more credible have a stronger negative change in brand
attitudes. The perceived article negativity is a robust predictor of attitude changes. It is important to
correct for this perceived article negativity to be able to find good results.
Consumers expect a response of well-known brands on allegations. Although a response cannot
prevent all damage to a brand, it has a considerably smaller negative effect on consumer brand
attitudes as compared to a No response strategy. The more credible the source of the article is
considered, the stronger the negative effect on consumer brand attitudes.
2
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Content
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1: Problem statement + Research Questions .................................................................................. 6
1.2: Relevance of topic........................................................................................................................ 8
1.2.1: Theoretical ............................................................................................................................ 8
1.2.2: Practical................................................................................................................................. 8
2: Theory ..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1: Literature review.......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1: Company crisis: product-harm.............................................................................................. 9
2.1.2: Company response effect ................................................................................................... 10
2.1.3: Buying intention .................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.4: Brand familiarity ................................................................................................................. 14
2.1.5: Publicity............................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.6: Source credibility ................................................................................................................ 18
2.1.7: Responsibility factor and attribution theory ...................................................................... 18
2.1.8: Publicity and the effect of marketing efforts ...................................................................... 19
2.1.9: Impact of publicity over time .............................................................................................. 20
2.2: Conceptual model + hypotheses................................................................................................ 21
3: Method.................................................................................................................................. 23
3.1: Research design ......................................................................................................................... 23
3.2: Experiment ................................................................................................................................. 25
3.2.1: Response bias...................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.2: Validity of scales.................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.3: Manipulation checks ........................................................................................................... 30
3.2.4: Outlier ................................................................................................................................. 32
4: Results ................................................................................................................................... 32
4.1: Differences between response strategies ................................................................................. 32
4.1.1: Effect on delta consumer brand attitude ........................................................................... 32
4.1.2: Ranking strategies ............................................................................................................... 34
4.2: Brand attitudes and likelihood to buy ....................................................................................... 36
4.3: Brand familiarity ........................................................................................................................ 37
4.3.1: Effect on delta consumer brand attitude ........................................................................... 37
3
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
4.3.2: Effect on delta likelihood to buy ......................................................................................... 38
4.4: Article negativity ........................................................................................................................ 40
4.5: Source credibility ....................................................................................................................... 43
4.6: Attitudes towards company response ....................................................................................... 44
5: General discussion ................................................................................................................. 45
5.1: Answering research questions ................................................................................................... 46
5.1.1: Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 46
5.1.2: Research question 1 ............................................................................................................ 48
5.1.3: Research question 2 ............................................................................................................ 49
5.1.4: Research question 3 ............................................................................................................ 50
5.1.5: Research question 4 ............................................................................................................ 51
5.2: Academic & Managerial Implications ........................................................................................ 52
5.2.1: Academic ............................................................................................................................. 52
5.2.2: Managerial .......................................................................................................................... 53
5.3: Limitations & Further Research ................................................................................................. 54
5.3.1: Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 54
5.3.2: Further research ................................................................................................................. 55
6: References ............................................................................................................................. 56
7: Appendix ............................................................................................................................... 61
4
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
1: Introduction
Consumers are increasingly aware of their health and safety and act upon it. But what happens
when the trust of consumers is undermined by news articles? In 2009, Toyota issued a recall for 3.9
million vehicles in the U.S. due to problematic floor mats, leading to sudden and uncontrollable
acceleration. The problems were widely described in blogs. Only after the news hit the majority of
mainstream media, brand attitudes towards Toyota decreased significantly and Toyota was not able
to recover for more than a year (Fan, Geddes, & Flory, 2011).
In Belgium, reports of school children becoming ill after drinking Coca Cola led to mass hysteria
(Nemery, Fischler, Boogaerts, Lison, & Willems, 2002). Allegedly the products contained dioxin,
which was also found in chicken related food crises at the same time. The negative publicity forced
Coca Cola to recall millions of beverages, although the products did not pose a health risk.
The gold standard of company response to negative publicity is considered by many the case of the
tampering with Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol. Some of the bottles were deliberately contaminated
with cyanide, a deadly poison, after they left the factory. Johnson & Johnson recalled all Tylenol
products within a week and designed new tamper-proof bottles which were available within ten
weeks. It also offered a $100,000 reward for the tip leading to the murderer, which was never
claimed. The company regained their full market share (Murray & Shohen, 1992).
Not all cases of negative publicity are as clear as the ones mentioned. In the previous examples there
was an immediate health risk. In this research the focus lies on alleged health risks after repeated
use of a product. For example, consuming too much sugar can pose serious health risks, but it can
take years before it can harm an individual. Some products contain ingredients that are potentially
harmful, but it may be subject of debate. One such ingredient is aspartame, found in numerous light
variants of products. How consumers react to negative publicity on this kind of unclear risks is of
interest in this study.
Companies have a wide range of options when news gets out. In situations without an immediate
health risk, it is not clear how consumers will react. For a company it is important to know how to
respond to minimise damage to the brand. Bradford and Garrett (1995) identified five main
response strategies: no response, denial, excuse, justification and concession. In the unclear risk
situation a company may choose a different response strategy as compared to an immediate health
risk situation. For instance, when a company does not respond to an immediate health risk, this can
be seen as irresponsible. Concerning a non-immediate health risk it might be acceptable to choose a
no response strategy, as not all information is available.
5
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Negative publicity can have different subjects, such as, product risks, incidents, unethical behaviour,
recalls or other company actions (Kalaitzandonakes, Marks, & Vickner, 2004; Kasperson et al, 1988).
Negative publicity has been defined as the noncompensated dissemination of potentially damaging
information by presenting disparaging news about a product, service, business unit, or individual in
print or broadcast media or by word of mouth (Sherell & Reidenbach, 1986). Blogs, social media,
reviews and other forms of online communication can also be considered as mediums broadcasting
negative publicity. This research is focussed on negative publicity in credible traditional media.
Kasperson et al. (1988) found a negativity bias in media coverage, a preference of journalist and
editors to publish negative articles over positive articles. Consumers’ perceived risk is related to the
amount of positive and negative media coverage they receive. Since media have a preference to
cover rare or dramatic risks, companies face increased attention of media when something goes
wrong. The negativity bias also increases the difficulty for companies to have their response be
heard.
The statement “there is no such thing as negative publicity” is popular, although this is not correct
for most cases (Berger, Sorensen, & Rasmussen, 2010). And as publicity gets spread more quickly
through social media and other innovative technologies, it becomes harder for firms to manage
publicity and react properly and in time.
From a marketing perspective, brands are built carefully, which reflects in intangible assets (Simon &
Sullivan, 1993). Publicity has an effect on the strength of a brand. Most often publicity management
is done by the public relationship department, with other goals than the marketing department
(Jeffries-Fox, 2001). Companies aware of this inconsistency can align the targets of public
relationship with the targets of marketing. Increased cooperation can create a single message
communicated to external parties, protecting brand value.
1.1: Problem statement + Research Questions
More and more research on publicity explores different relationships between publicity, consumer
brand attitudes, choice and sales, and a number of possible moderating variables. In this research
the main questions is about the moderating effect of a company’s response. What strategy do
companies have to follow for best results? Do more familiar brands need a different strategy?
6
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Problem Statement:
This paper investigates the best response strategy as measured by consumer brand
attitudes for two brands of cola.
Four research questions are formulated to find an answer to the problem statement and to provide
structure. First the general effect of negative publicity on consumer brand attitudes is examined.
Research question 1:
What is the effect of negative publicity on consumer brand attitudes?
To find out what the best response strategy on negative publicity is, first the effect of negative
publicity itself must be clear. Consumer brand attitudes are used to measure how consumers feel
about the brand on different aspects.
Research question 2:
Can a company’s response strategy limit the effect of negative publicity on consumer
brand attitudes?
Companies can use different types of responses, in which they accept responsibility, propose
solutions, or deny allegations. The reaction of consumers on the negative publicity and on the
company response combined does lead to updated consumer brand attitudes. Of primary interest is
the change in consumer brand attitudes between the initial attitudes and the attitudes after the
news and company response.
Research question 3:
Does company familiarity moderate the effect of negative publicity on consumer
brand attitudes?
It is not expected that negative publicity affects consumer brand attitudes in the same manner
under all conditions. The familiarity of a consumer with a brand is a proxy for their knowledge about
the brand. It is interesting to see if consumers react differently on news regarding familiar brands as
they have more prior information and possible stronger attitudes.
Research question 4:
Does negative publicity affect purchase intentions?
The experiment measures consumer brand attitudes and likelihood to buy. Reibstein (1978) created
a model for attitudes and behaviour: Attitude forms preference, which leads to behavioural
intention, and results in behaviour. The seriousness of the negative publicity may influence the
effect on purchase intentions. From a managerial point of view the link between attitude change and
purchase intention and behaviour is especially important as it affects sales directly.
7
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
1.2: Relevance of topic
1.2.1: Theoretical
The effect of publicity on brand attitudes and choice did not receive as much attention in the past as
research on the effect of advertising, price, promotion and other marketing tools did. In the last
decade the knowledge about the effect of publicity has increased, specifically related to moderating
and mediating variables on the severity of the news, consumer attitudes, brand reputation, and
response strategies. It is interesting to see if publicity can be managed or countered to the benefit of
the company. Some research to company’s crisis management strategies have been conducted, but
to my knowledge there are few experiments conducted to specifically measure the effects of
different company responses. One example of a relevant research is the paper of Dean (2004) which
measures the reaction of consumers on negative publicity and the effects of company reputation,
style of response and responsibility. His experiment uses fictitious brands and is therefore likely to
overstate consumer response, since consumers do not have pre-existing attitudes towards the
brands which can form a buffer (Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991).
In real world data the effect of publicity is incredibly hard to measure, given the number of factors
that influence sales. In a research conducted in Australia, on iodized salt, a time series analysis was
possible since iodized salt was never promoted, advertised or discounted (Li, Chapman, Agho, &
Eastman, 2008). Publicity on the positive effects of iodized salt versus regular salt resulted in a
significant increase of sales. The current research adds to the existing literature the effect of
publicity on well-known real world brands and the moderating effect of different company
responses. Furthermore, it provides insight on specific factors of consumer behaviour on negative
publicity and company response. The experimental setting using real world brands is preferable over
case studies when isolation of factors is important.
1.2.2: Practical
Companies can lose sales when the quality and safety of their products is disputed in the media. In a
state of ambiguity, consumers change their attitudes towards a brand based on publicity. For a
company it is important to counter negative publicity most effectively to protect market share and
company reputation.
This study focuses on the effect of publicity and the moderating effect of company communication.
Advertising and other marketing efforts of the company and the relationship with publicity have
been researched before (Stammerjohan, Wood, Chang, & Thorson, 2005; Jeffries-Fox, 2001) and are
8
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
outside the scope of this research. In the current experiment the effect of company response on the
consumer brand attitudes after negative publicity is the main research goal.
Contrasting to most studies on negative publicity, this experiment considers the effect of a news
article that does not include direct health risks. The effect of limited health risks has not received a
lot of scientific attention and it is therefore unclear if the effect of consumers is comparable to the
reaction on more severe risks, such as the Tylenol case in the introduction (Murray & Shohen, 1992).
Responding to less significant health risks is a more relevant case for companies, as the majority of
product risks is not considered directly lethal.
2: Theory
2.1: Literature review
There are a number of common themes in research on publicity. Most studies focus on negative
publicity, as it is associated with higher risk and larger stakes. Studies vary by using different
independent variables; such as consumer commitment, trust or preference, or company
characteristics such as brand image or responsibility, or response strategy. Case studies are popular
for examining overall effect of certain strategies, but the results of these studies are complex to
extrapolate due to noise (Korkofingas & Ang, 2011; Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000).
Experiments can focus on the effect of specific factors, but may guide respondents to certain
answers or may be subject to social desirability bias. When using fictitious brands in an experiment,
real world implications may be limited, although the effect of publicity is easier to measure.
Literature suggests a negative effect of negative publicity on sales and on consumer brand attitudes
(Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991). News articles provide a relatively credible source of information,
especially compared to advertising. Consumers use this information in their decision making
processes. A positive effect on sales may occur when awareness is low as the negative publicity can
significantly increase awareness offsetting the negative effect of the news itself (Berger, Sorensen, &
Rasmussen, 2010). This positive effect of negative publicity scenario is very uncommon.
2.1.1: Company crisis: product-harm
Negative publicity can take many different forms. Accounting scandals, employee discrimination,
bribery cases or terrible customer service are all significant potential problems for a company
9
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
leading to reputational damage (Greyser, 2007). Product-harm crises can be considered as the most
severe problems. A product-harm crisis is characterised by the (direct) negative effect of a product
on the health or well-being of a consumer.
Two main types of product-harm can be distinguished. First, products that risk or affect health or
well-being directly, for instance when consuming one unit. These risks are hardly arguable by
companies or other institutions and demand a swift response and a thorough solution to the
problem. Second, products may contain harmful ingredients that may pose a threat when used
regularly. In this non immediate health risk situation consumers are not in immediate danger and
companies may challenge the claims or point at the amounts a customer needs to consume before it
is considered unhealthy or risky. Alternatively the ingredient may be beneficial for one whilst it may
increase the risk of harm for others. Sugar for instance is considered unhealthy when used
excessively. And some health improving products such as Becel Pro-Activ can lower blood
cholesterol for people with high cholesterol levels, but it may pose unintended health risks for
others.
Events in the first category are more severe and companies often decide to recall the affected
products. Johnson and Johnson recalled their Tylenol products when some of them were tampered
with deadly poison, and Toyota recalled millions of vehicles worldwide for sticking accelerator
pedals. Laufer and Coombs (2006) state that before and during a product recall situation the
situation is ambiguous. In line with the attribution theory, consumers try to attribute blame to either
the company, the user, or another person or institution (Kelley, 1973). The initial reputation of the
company and their responsibility in the event is likely to affect brand attitudes.
2.1.2: Company response effect
Consumers desire a response from a company when they encounter negative publicity (Menon,
Jewell, & Unnava, 1999). In their paper on response strategies for companies experiencing negative
publicity, they find that no response or a weak response leads to about the same consumer
attitudes, whilst a strong response generates more positive attitudes towards the company.
An appropriate response to negative publicity is predicted to reduce the negative effect of publicity
on consumer brand attitudes (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). Companies may try to shift the blame on
others, counter argue the statements, accept responsibility and act on it, or take other steps.
Depending on the credibility of the company, the response might weaken the perceived threat to
10
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
consumers, and limit the effect of the negative publicity on brand attitudes. Different appropriate
responses to publicity exist. In this experiment, three main strategies are defined.
The Adaptation of new processes response (1) consists of an acknowledgement of the problem and a
promise to change the production processes to eliminate the risk. In the Denial of severity response
(2) a company confirms the initial claim, but argues that the risk is minimal or non-existent. The
company may also choose a No response strategy (3). This can be due to litigation, or the company
can try to keep the problem silent to minimise damage. Finally, the company may just be too slow or
indecisive in their actions.
The impact of the company response is measured by the delta consumers brand attitude. This is the
difference between the final attitudes of consumers and the initial preferences. The consumer brand
attitude at time 2 minus the consumer brand attitude at time 1 results in the delta consumer brand
attitude. Time 2 is the moment after the respondents read the news article and the company’s
response. It is expected that consumers react differently on the response strategies of companies.
This leads to the first hypothesis:
H1:
The three company response strategies have different effects on the delta consumer
brand attitude.
To evaluate the different response strategies theoretically, Folger and Cropanzano (2001) developed
the fairness theory. This theory is based on three pillars: Could, Should and Would. In order to
understand a negative event consumers analyse the situation based on three questions: Could the
company do something about the occurrence of the event, Should the company have acted
otherwise to comply with ethical and moral standards, and what Would be the impact of alternative
actions. The first two questions determine whether or not a company is morally accountable for an
event. The Would question compares the event with the best alternative given the situation, and the
difference between those situations is the magnitude of the negative publicity.
A company that can reduce the perceived accountability for an event (Could and Should factors) is
hypothesized to be more highly regarded by consumers (Dean, 2004). This is the case when a
company is presented with product tampering that takes places after the product has left the
factory, as the company is no longer realistically able to control the circumstances in all distribution
and retail channels. An example is the Tylenol case described in the introduction of this thesis. The
company is not to blame for the event as it has lived up to the ethical and moral standards. Logically,
the outcome of the best alternative action would not differ too much from the actual outcome as
the company was on par with these standards and cannot be expected to greatly exceed them.
11
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Bradford and Garrett (1995) created the corporate communication response model to evaluate five
different response tactics in four different situations. The tactics used are: no response, denial,
excuse, justification and concession. The authors hypothesized that: (a) a company should use a
denial response when it can provide evidence that it did not commit an unethical action, (b) when a
company can prove that it did not have control over the event it should use an excuse response, (c)
when the company believes inappropriate standards are being used to evaluate its actions it should
use a justification response, and (d) when the company agrees on the allegations it should use the
concession approach. Furthermore they state that when a company uses the right strategy and the
response is accepted, the event will not harm the company’s image. The results of their experiment
did not provide support for this model, as it showed the concession response as the most preferable
response in all situations except for the control situation. In the control situation the excuse,
justification and concession strategy did not significantly differ from each other. This implies that the
best strategy for companies facing negative publicity is to use a concession response, measured by
impact on brand image.
An Adaptation of new processes response is expected to lead to the highest brand attitudes when
consumers are satisfied with the actions and believe the company acts in their benefit (Siomkos &
Shrivastava, 1993). More specifically, it is expected that the drop in brand attitudes measured from
before the news article and after the response is the smallest in this scenario. Bradford and Garrett
(1995) find that consumers perceive the company as acting irresponsible when it denies allegations.
The Denial of severity strategy in this experiment differs from this Denial scenario. The Denial of
severity strategy confirms the allegation that certain ingredients are present in the product, where
the Denial scenario of Bradford and Garrett (1995) denies all allegations. The effect will be
dependent on how consumers evaluate the response of the company. It is expected that Denial of
severity results in brand attitudes higher than the No response strategy when consumers agree with
the arguments of the company. Not responding to the allegations can imply that the allegations are
indeed true.
Menon, Jewell, and Unnava (1999) find about the same negative impact of a no response scenario
and a weak argument. The results for the Denial of severity response in the experiment cannot be
directly compared to the weak argument results of Menon et al. (1999) since the Denial of severity
claims are considerably stronger.
Siomkos and Shrivastava (1993) found that low-reputation companies need to put in more effort
when a product-harm crisis hits the news. These companies need to convince consumers that they
are concerned about consumer well-being, about minimising risk and that they are socially
12
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
responsible. High-reputation companies are advised to voluntarily recall harmful products directly.
Denial of the problem should be avoided for both high- and low-reputation companies, although this
is even more important for low-reputation companies. A Denial of severity response does not
convince consumers of a company’s innocence but is seen as defensive and selfish.
The first strategy in this experiment a company can use in times of negative publicity is to choose
not to react, or postpone a response. In both situations, consumers are in ambiguous situation and
not sure if the risk is valid. This strategy is hypothesized to have the strongest negative effect on
consumer brand attitudes. Companies using the Denial of severity strategy are expected to do better
than companies who do not respond. The Adaptation of new processes strategy is expected to have
the highest consumer brand attitudes. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H1a: “No company response” will have the strongest negative effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
H1b: “Denial of severity” will have a somewhat negative effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
H1c: “Adaptation of new processes” will have a minimal effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
2.1.3: Buying intention
Korkofingas and Ang (2011) support the link between brand attitudes and brand equity, and
subsequently between brand equity and brand value. Brand value is likely to affect brand choices.
Higher brand value equals greater perceived benefit for consumers, and can prevent switching
behaviour. The reverse is true for low consumer brand attitudes. It is expected that buying likelihood
correlates with brand attitudes. A full correlation is not expected, since consumers can have lower
brand attitudes but still buy the same brand. This can be due to switching costs, lack of alternatives
or consumers’ perceived utility threshold.
Ajzen (1991) created the Theory for Planned Behaviour. It consists of the attitude towards the
behaviour, the subjective norm, and perceived behavioural control. These predict intention, which in
turn explains a substantial part of variance in behaviour. One example of the use of this theory is
whether or not one wears a seatbelt. The attitude towards the behaviour is measured by questions
like: I consider the wearing of a seatbelt as something bad/good. Subjective norms are measured by
asking if people who are important to the individual would approve the use of seatbelts. Intention is
13
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
the reported intention, and actual usage can also be measured by self-reported use (Torquato,
Franco, & Bianchi, 2012).
Rosenstock, Strecher, and Becker (1994) evaluate the Health Belief Model, an alternative model to
explain consumer behaviour, specifically for health related intentions and behaviour. The basis of
the model is that one will change their behaviour if the following conditions apply:
One perceives a personal health risk, one perceives the risk as severe, one perceives a behavioural
change as effective, the negative consequences of the behavioural change do not outweigh the
benefits, one receives bodily or environmental cues to action, and one believes he/she can change
their behaviour positively. The behavioural change can be indirectly influenced by demographic,
sociopsychological, and other variables that influence attitudes, perception and behaviour.
Negative publicity is, in this model, primarily an environmental cue to action. It reminds consumers
of the health risk and stimulates them to take action. The effect of negative publicity is not limited to
a call to action. It may also influence the perceived individual health risk, provide information on the
severity of the risk, change the perceived effectiveness of behavioural change, change the evaluation
of positive and negative aspects of behaviour change, and it can alter the belief one has in the ability
to change their behaviour. In this experiment, the distinction between the impact of all different
aspects is not crucial. Therefore, it is aggregated in the self-reported delta likelihood to buy. The
delta likelihood to buy is measured by the likelihood to buy at time period 2, after the news article
and the company response, minus the likelihood to buy at time period 1, the initial preferences of
consumers. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2:
Decreasing delta consumer brand attitude will decrease consumers’ delta likelihood to
buy.
2.1.4: Brand familiarity
In an empirical research on publicity, advertising, and consumer brand attitudes Stammerjohan,
Wood, Chang, and Thorson (2005) investigate the synergy of using multiple advertising mediums and
publicity. For familiar brands, the respondents did not have a different attitude after viewing positive
news stories. Their reasoning is that people already have opinions about brands and new
information is not that influential compared to previous opinions. This so-called buffer effect may
limit the impact of publicity conflicting with a consumer’s opinion (Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991).
Contradictory, consumer brand attitude towards unfamiliar brands was found to be influenced by
news stories (Stammerjohan et al., 2005). In the present experiment, one well-known brand, Coca
14
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Cola, and one less-known private label brand, First Choice, is used to allow tests on the difference in
expected effects. An exception to this theory is described by Berger, Sorensen, and Rasmussen
(2010) in a paper on negative reviews. The authors find a positive effect of negative reviews under
the condition of low awareness, reasoning that the increase in awareness has a positive influence on
the probability the brand is part of the consideration set. This potentially offsets the negative effect
of lower choice probability in the final choice stage of a consumer purchase decision. When there is
a delay between publicity and the purchase opportunity, consumers do not remember the valence
of a review very well, and therefore the increased awareness can help product sales.
Negative publicity is likely to have a larger effect on unfamiliar brands as opposed to familiar brands.
Consumer brand attitudes are less robust for unfamiliar brands compared to familiar brands, and
therefore it is easier to change perceptions. Companies with higher reputation are better able to
buffer negative effects during crisis (Van Riel & Fombrun, 2007). The negativity effect specifies that
high-commitment users of brands view negative publicity as less diagnostic (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, &
Unnava, 2000), decreasing the effect of negative publicity for brands with loyal customers. Their
results show that low-commitment consumers do express a far greater attitude change than highcommitment consumers. High-commitment consumers counter argue negative information more
than they do positive information.
Dean (2004) states that the expectations-evidence framework suggests company reputation will
generate expectations about the company’s response. In the current research, the well-known high
reputation company is expected to be less vulnerable to negative publicity as compared to the lessknown company. Reputation can help consumers make a choice between products.
Sago and Hinnenkamp (2014) state that consumers’ brand attitude for their favourite brand is
affected by negative publicity. Consumers’ willingness to buy their favourite brand decreases with
decreasing brand perception. For males, the amount they are willing to pay for their favourite brand
decreases and the time they are willing to shop for competing brands increases with decreasing
brand perception. Strong brands are thus not invulnerable to negative publicity. For females, this
relationship was not supported. Concluding Sago and Hinnenkamp (2014) state that companies
should use marketing to counter the effect of negative publicity. However, in their experiment they
did not test the impact of marketing. Other researchers found that this would be a wasted effort
(Jeffries-Fox, 2001), as it can remind consumers of the negative publicity and because consumers
may perceive advertising as not credible in this situation.
15
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Dawar and Lei (2009) created a framework to evaluate a brand crisis and the moderating effects of
brand familiarity and crisis relevance on brand evaluations. They find support for the hypothesis that
for consumers familiar with the brand, irrelevant brand crises do not affect brand evaluations,
whereas relevant brand crises do have a negative effect on brand evaluations. A brand crisis did lead
to a negative effect on evaluation of the brand for consumers unfamiliar with the brand, regardless
of crisis relevance.
The impact of brand familiarity is measured by the delta consumers brand attitude. This leads to the
following hypothesis:
H3a: Consumer brand familiarity will positively correlate with delta consumer brand attitude.
Brand familiarity is also correlated with brand choice (Haley & Case, 1979). In automatic decision
making processes, consumers favour the familiar brand as it is a less risky choice. This decision is not
necessarily based on their personal attitude towards the brand. Therefore, the model includes a
direct effect of brand familiarity on delta likelihood to buy.
H3b: Consumer brand familiarity will positively correlate with delta likelihood to buy.
Interestingly, Korkofingas and Ang (2011) state that although some evidence may support that
reputable or strong brands are less vulnerable for negative publicity, some reputable or strong
brands experience a stronger loss in sales than other less strong brands. A possible explanation for
this phenomenon is that consumers have higher expectations of premium, reputable brands and
negative publicity is a greater disappointment compared to brands of which consumers have low
expectations. In the two studies mentioned by Korkofingas and Ang (2011) they find support for this
prominent fall effect. The first study was on automobile recalls, where high-quality brands were
more likely to see a decrease in market share (Rhee & Haunschild, 2006). The other study concerned
the delivery service of a sandwich shop, were a service failure resulted in a severe drop of ratings
only for the well-known sandwich shop (Roehm & Brady, 2007). This drop was only noticeable when
respondents had some time between the service failure and the moment of rating the shop.
The buffer effect and the prominent fall effect are contradictory theories on the moderating impact
of brand familiarity. In this study, the results are expected to follow the buffer effect theory (Griffin,
Babin, & Attaway, 1991). The support for the prominent fall theory is limited and therefore it is hard
to generalise the situations under which this theory holds. Presumably there must be a large
discrepancy between the expected service of the well-known brand and the less-known brand. In
16
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
this case, the main difference between the products is taste. It can be expected that both products
meet safety and quality standards.
2.1.5: Publicity
The case study mentioned earlier on news coverage of iodized salt in Australia (Li, Chapman, Agho, &
Eastman, 2008) shows a significant increase in sales after publicity on the results of a nutrition study
on the benefits of iodized salt. This case study is unique since salt was never promoted, advertised or
discounted. This provides an opportunity for a time series analysis in a real world scenario, with
minimum noise. Such opportunities are rare and therefore the need for experimental research stays
intact.
The link between negative publicity and consumer brand attitudes has been researched extensively
(Laufer & Coombs 2006; Vassilikopoulou, Siomkos, Chatzipanagiotou, & Pantouvakis, 2009; Sago &
Hinnenkamp, 2014; Menon, Jewell, & Unnava, 1999; Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991). As consumers
become aware of product risks about a brand they will consider this information and act upon it.
When the information is plausible and credible, a negative change in attitude is expected.
The effect of negative publicity is stronger than the effect of positive publicity on consumer brand
attitudes. Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava (2000) state that people tend to find negative
information more important than positive information in the forming of evaluations of unfamiliar
persons or brands. A reason for this effect is argued to be that negative information has more
informational value to consumers. Most brands can be considered to be able to live up to
expectations and to be safe to use, thus positive publicity does not significantly alter the consumer
attitudes towards those brands. Negative publicity does provide consumers with information they
can use to change their behaviour. This effect does not hold for high-commitment consumers. These
consumers were found not to have a negativity effect; they do not react stronger on negative news
than on positive news. They can be biased and are likely to counter argue the negative publicity
(Ahluwalia et al., 2000). These findings are in line with smaller effect of publicity on consumer brand
attitudes for familiar brands as discussed earlier.
Not all consumers perceive news in the same manner. A negative article for one may be neutral or
positive for another. To correct for this difference, the following hypothesis is established:
H4:
Perceived article negativity will negatively affect delta consumer brand attitude.
17
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
2.1.6: Source credibility
Source credibility is assumed to be one of the moderators of the effect of negative publicity. This is
supported by the attitude and attribution theory (Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991). The attitudes of a
consumer can change when exposed to a message of a credible source. On the other hand, low
credibility sources are likely to be discounted. Although source credibility did not have a significant
effect on consumer attitudes in some research (Rosenbaum & Levin, 1969), the effect is supported
by Griffin et al. (1991). In the latter experiment however, source credibility did not have a significant
effect on purchase intentions.
Publicity is seen as a credible source of information, especially compared to information from a
company source (Bond & Kirschenbaum, 1998). Consumers use the most credible information to
check other sources on their reliability (Stammerjohan, Wood, Chang, & Thorson, 2005). In the
current experiment, the reliability or trustworthiness of the news article is likely to be higher than
the reliability or trustworthiness of the company response. Furthermore, as consumers are expected
to be less affected by new information when they are familiar with the brand, both the news item
and the company response are likely to have a smaller impact on the attitudes for a well-known
brand.
Despite the general credibility of publicity, news articles are not always objective, trustworthy and
complete. Journalists frame stories for different reasons, such as their knowledge, tight deadlines
and available space (Kalaitzandonakes, Marks, & Vickner, 2004). Framing is not expected to alter the
credibility of a message directly, but it can increase the perceived significance of events. In product
harm situations, minor risks can be amplified. This “agenda setting” leads to biased news coverage
and a disproportionate coverage of negative events (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Companies therefore
face an increased risk of being subject to negative publicity.
The perceived credibility of a source is likely to moderate the effect of negative publicity on
consumer brand attitudes.
H5:
Perceived source credibility will negatively affect delta consumer brand attitude.
2.1.7: Responsibility factor and attribution theory
Whether or not the company is responsible for a product-harm crisis or other negative events is
important for the effect on consumer behaviour. Responsibility can be seen as perceived
accountability for an event. When a company is responsible, the questions ‘Could the company do
something about the occurrence of the event’ and ‘Should the company have acted otherwise to
18
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
comply with ethical and moral standards’ will result in a negative outcome for the company. The
remaining question ‘What would have happened in the best alternative scenario’ then measures the
magnitude of the event (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001).
The theory behind the responsibility factor is the attribution theory (Kelley, 1973). This theory
suggests that consumers seek causal relationships for observed events. This is combined with the
discounting principle, which states that consumers discount the perceived relationship if new
plausible information is received. As soon as consumers read or see the negative publicity, they
attribute blame to the company, the user or another person or organisation. When the company
issues a response, the consumer evaluates this information and if it is plausible it will discount the
negative publicity in favour of the company response (Dean, 2004).
A positively perceived response of the company is expected to reduce the impact of negative
publicity. This leads to the final hypothesis:
H6:
Attitude towards company response will negatively moderate the effect of negative
publicity and company response on delta consumer brand attitude.
2.1.8: Publicity and the effect of marketing efforts
The effects of advertising and other marketing efforts have been a popular topic in research for
decades. Publicity was often not part of marketing research and the relationship between
advertising and publicity was long unclear. Stammerjohan, Wood, Chang, and Thorson (2005) did
analyse this relationship in an experiment on integrated marketing communications. They found that
positive advertising lessened the effect of negative publicity. Positive publicity enhanced positive
advertising effects.
In contrast, Jeffries-Fox (2001) argues that heavy advertising in a time of negative publicity is wasted
as it cannot compensate for the effect of negative publicity. He states that heavy advertising could
draw consumer’s attention to the company and thereby remind consumers of the negative publicity,
increasing the effect of negative publicity. This is supported by an analysis of the customers aware of
the specific news story who felt it had some or great impact against the customers who were not
aware of that news story. Advertising for the first group did not significantly increase attitudes,
whereas it did have a significant positive effect for the other group.
Eisend and Küster (2011) analysed the effectiveness of publicity versus advertising. In this metaanalysis literature the effect of positive publicity is compared to advertising. In general, positive
publicity is preferable over marketing for less-known brands. The credibility of a less-known brand is
19
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
limited, translating in a smaller impact of advertising, as consumers seek for credible information.
This also highlights the vulnerability of less-known brands. As brands gain credibility, the impact of
their advertising increases.
2.1.9: Impact of publicity over time
In an analysis of the Toyota recall crisis, Fan, Geddes, and Flory (2011) show that the brand
reputation of Toyota is significantly lower when news about the safety issues appears in mainstream
media. Toyota was not able to regain the pre-crisis level of reputation for more than a year after the
crisis. The combined impact of hundreds of reports in a half-year period did substantial damage to
the brand which Toyota could not recover from easily.
The performance history of a company can influence consumer purchase intentions. A company
which experienced multiple negative events is more likely perceived as the cause of these problems,
compared to companies experiencing only a single problem. Subsequent negative publicity for a
company may therefore lead to stronger negative effects (Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991).
Another way to look at the time variable in publicity is the impact of a single event or a single news
item on consumer brand attitudes and the duration of the effect. Fan and Cook (2003) assume nonexistent persuasiveness of news before publication, maximum persuasiveness at the day of
publication and an exponential decay over time. This is in line with the half-life theory commonly
found in biologic and chemical science. The effect of a substance is decreased by 50% in every time
period, resulting in a quick decrease in impact but a long period before the effect is practically worn
out completely. The time period varies among different substances.
Hill, Lo, Vavreck and Zaller (2013) find that the half-life of mass communication varies from only one
or two days for political publicity to about 30 days for Iraq casualty reports. In cases of a one or two
day half-life, long-term effects are virtually non-existent. But a continuous stream of publicity is
expected to create long-term attitudinal change. For mass communication with longer half-life, this
effect is likely also present and can explain the long duration of the effect on attitudes. The authors
advise politicians to preserve advertising budgets for the last week to gain an advantage over
competitors. Spending on advertising early on in the election race does not have a significant impact
on the results. This implies a minimal long-term effect even for continuous campaign
communication.
In an experiment on the duration of product-harm crisis effects, Vassilikopoulou, Siomkos,
Chatzipanagiotou and Pantouvakis (2009) find support for a short duration of effects of negative
20
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
publicity on perceived danger and purchase intentions. One year after the crisis in their experiment,
the purchase intentions were 2.62 times greater than three months after the crisis. The severity of
the crisis was also quickly forgotten: after three days, the severity influenced the purchase
intentions, but after three months, no significant relationship was found. Socially responsible
companies and companies issuing a voluntary recall experience higher brand attitudes, as
consumers seem to remember the issue less well compared to companies who do not act
appropriately. Likewise, in food risk events, a modest temporary impact of sales was found
(Kalaitzandonakes, Marks & Vickner, 2004).
As it is very complex to measure the impact of time in an experimental setting without significant
noise, this is not part of this experiment.
2.2: Conceptual model + hypotheses
The central theory in this model is the negative combined effect of negative publicity and company
response on delta consumer brand attitudes (Figure 1). These delta consumer brand attitudes, the
difference between consumer brand attitudes at time 1 and time 2, in turn affect the change in
choice probability for the brand. Lower consumer brand attitudes are hypothesized to result in lower
choice probability. Company response to negative publicity may diminish the effect of negative
publicity on consumer brand attitudes. Depending on the severity of the publicity and the strength
of the company response, the net effect may be negative, neutral or positive. Company response is
not hypothesized to affect the link between consumer brand attitudes and choice probability, as the
effect of the company response is assumed to be fully captured by the consumer brand attitudes.
Company familiarity is expected to directly affect delta consumer brand attitudes. A higher company
familiarity is hypothesized to increase delta consumer brand attitudes. When consumers have more
knowledge about the brand, a single news article does not create a strong association with the
brand easily. Less-known brands do not have a rich associative network, and consumers relate the
brand more strongly to the news article. Finally, company familiarity is hypothesized to directly
affect the choice probability. The reasoning is that consumers will still choose the brand over
competitors if it is a very familiar brand, irrespective of negative publicity and lower consumer brand
attitudes.
21
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Figure 1: Conceptual model.
Negative publicity
Perceived article
negativity
No company
response
H1a (--)
Denial of severity
response
H1b (-)
Adaptation new
processes response
H1c (+-)
Perceived source
credibility
H5 (-)
H4 (-)
H2 (+)
Delta consumer
brand attitude
H3a (+)
Delta likelihood to
buy
H3b (+)
H6 (-)
Attitude towards
company response
H1:
Consumer brand
familiarity
The three company response strategies have different effects on the delta consumer
brand attitude.
H1a: “No company response” will have the strongest negative effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
H1b: “Denial of severity” will have a somewhat negative effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
H1c: “Adaptation of new processes” will have a minimal effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
H2:
Decreasing delta consumer brand attitude will decrease consumers’ delta likelihood to
buy.
H3a: Higher consumer brand familiarity will positively correlate with delta consumer brand
attitude, i.e. well-known companies experience a smaller impact on brand attitudes.
H3b: Higher consumer brand familiarity will positively correlate with delta likelihood to buy.
H4:
Perceived article negativity will negatively affect delta consumer brand attitude.
H5:
Perceived source credibility will negatively affect delta consumer brand attitude.
H6:
Attitude towards company response will negatively moderate the effect of negative
publicity and company response on delta consumer brand attitude.
22
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
3: Method
3.1: Research design
To test the hypotheses, two brands are needed, one highly familiar brand and one unfamiliar brand.
Therefore the well-known cola brand Coca Cola and the less-known private label cola brand First
Choice are used. Coca Cola has a high brand value since people have a lot of knowledge about and
positive attitudes towards the brand. The effect of one news article is likely to be buffered by the
pre-existing knowledge. The results on the Coca Cola part of the experiment are therefore
conservative as people are less likely to switch based on one article. In real world situations,
consumers may obtain information about product risks from multiple sources and on different
points in time. This increases the impact of negative publicity.
For First Choice, the brand awareness is expected to be relatively low. As the brand is sold in a
limited number of supermarket chains in the Netherlands, the majority of the Dutch population does
not encounter products of the brand regularly. Furthermore, First Choice does not make significant
use of advertising and promotional campaigns, and has not been subject of news articles for the last
four years, when it was in a dispute with Coca Cola on the design of their bottles. The results of the
First Choice scenarios are expected to be somewhat more volatile, especially for respondents who
are totally unfamiliar with the brand.
The strength of individual brands is a function of consumer perceived utility, attraction, and brand
choice probability (Poulsen et al, 2005). Assuming private label, less-known or fictitious brands have
less loyal customers, and they have less knowledge about the brand or the company producing it,
switching behaviour and attitude change will be stronger and easier to measure. Compared to
experiments on fictitious brands, the current experiment has a higher managerial usability as it more
closely resembles a real life situation, especially in the Coca Cola scenarios.
Previous experiments on publicity commonly use fictitious brands for internal validity. This limits the
external validity and consequently managerial usability. Since the current experiment controls for
respondents initial preference, the internal validity can maintain a high level. The external validity of
this experiment is low, as any experiment, but higher than previous experiments with fictitious
brands. The explanation is that a survey creates a hypothetical situation which is not comparable to
the environment of real world situations. For instance, respondents may report intention to buy, but
their report is often too positive (Chandon, Morwitz, & Reinartz, 2005). For consumers with high
purchase intentions, there is support for the hypothesis that they are more likely to buy a product
when they are asked to fill out a survey. There is also support for the reverse relation. This
23
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
effectively leads to more extreme results, creating a considerable limitation of usability of all forms
of research making use of surveys. Another reason for low external validity is the fact that a
convenience sample is used. The demographics of the experiment do not represent a random
sample of the total population. This limits the generalizability of the results for the total population.
A better spread in the age, gender and educational factors could improve this.
The experiment is a 2x3 between subjects design. Two levels for Brand (well-known and less-known)
and three levels for response strategy are used (Adaptation of new processes, Denial of Severity, and
No company response). Respondents are randomly assigned to one of six scenarios (Table 1). The
first scenario is a news article about small amounts of chemicals causing cancer in Coca Cola. After
stating their preferences, respondents get to read the company’s response to this article, in which
Coca Cola confirms the news and communicates the adaptation of new processes worldwide. In the
second scenario, respondents are presented with the exact same news article, but the response of
Coca Cola is different. This time, the company denies the allegations that the chemicals used can
cause cancer when consuming normal amounts. In the third scenario, respondents are presented
the news, accompanied by statement that Coca Cola did not want to respond to the allegations.
Table 1 Survey scenarios and timeline.
Coca Cola
First Choice
Time 1
Publicity
Response strategy
Time 2
group 1
Attitude
group 2
Attitude
Negative
Adaptation
Attitude
Negative
Denial of severity
Attitude
group 3
Attitude
Negative
No response
Attitude
group 4
Attitude
Negative
Adaptation
Attitude
group 5
Attitude
Negative
Denial of severity
Attitude
group 6
Attitude
Negative
No response
Attitude
The fourth, fifth and sixth scenario show the same news article as in the previous scenarios, but
modified for a private label First Choice. Respondents are presented with either the Adaptation of
new processes response (scenario four), a Denial of severity response (scenario five), and a control
scenario: No company response (scenario six).
By testing preferences before and after the experiment the change in attitudes and preference is
measured, so the initial preference levels are not specifically important. The relative performance of
response strategies and the effects of moderating variables are of interest here.
In all scenarios the company is responsible for the event. Events for which the company is not
responsible, such as misuse or abuse by consumers, require different strategies which are not within
the scope of this experiment as it would considerably increase the number of scenarios and the
24
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
number of respondents required. Furthermore, it would introduce company responsibility and
blame as factors in the model, increasing the complexity.
The warning in the news article is a non-immediate health risk, as defined in Chapter 2.1.1 on
corporate crisis and product harm. This can form an ambiguous situation for consumers, as they may
or may not agree with the initial accusation in the news article and with the company’s response. An
ambiguous situation is typical for product crises, as information on the events tends to come to the
surface slowly and incompletely. The source of both the initial article on the warning for product
harm and for the response of the company is stated as NRC Handelsblad, a credible newspaper in
the Netherlands. It is found to be the most credible newspaper in The Netherlands (Newcom
Research & Consultancy, 2011). Not mentioning a source would create an unclear situation for
respondents, where they could evaluate the credibility more than the content of the article. It is also
more realistic as most serious negative news is broadcasted by credible media.
The news article is based on an actual news article on the website of Belgium newspaper Het Laatste
Nieuws (“Ingrediënt in cola is kankerverwekkend”, 2011). It is edited to make it more relevant for
Dutch respondents, by referring to Dutch research institutions and the Dutch market. The original
article is left intact for most part to maintain the realism of the news. The company response article
is based on an article in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (“Coca-Cola en Pepsi passen recept aan
om kankerwaarschuwing”, 2012). As with the news article, it is tailored to the Dutch market. The
article maintains the message of the original article for the Adaptation of processes response. For
the Denial of severity response, the edited article uses arguments of the original article to provide
arguments against the allegations. In the No response scenario, the sentence “ [Coca Cola / First
Choice] does not wish to respond the news” was added at the end of the news article.
3.2: Experiment
For the experiment a convenience sample of high school and university students was recruited. To
diversify the group of respondents it was distributed to a wider public in personal networks. The
survey was conducted online, in the period from July 14th to July 28th 2014. The questionnaire,
presented in Appendix 2, is in Dutch.
In total 301 respondents opened the survey, of which 89 did not complete it. A total of 212 cases
were useful for analyses. The response rate is 70.4%. Of the 212 respondents, 183 respondents fully
completed the survey, 6 did not enter demographic information, and the remaining 23 respondents
25
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
finished the main part of the survey but did not answer questions about article negativity, age,
gender, and a few other non-critical subjects. Four respondents entered an incorrect age (1 and 99)
and these values have been labelled missing.
In the results in Section 4.1.1 an extra test is described to check for different effects between the
group who completed the question on article negativity (N=189) and the full group (N=212).
About one in three respondents is female, 33% of the 183 respondents who fully completed the
survey. The spread in age is wider than in comparable research, M = 30.79, SD = 14.16. It is
somewhat younger than the Dutch population, due to a somewhat overrepresentation of high
school and university students. The highest current or finished education (Table 2) of the sample is
not representative of the general population of the Netherlands. The percentage of respondents
who finished or are enrolled in University (WO) or University of applied science (HBO) is a lot higher
than the national average of 29% (CBS Statistisch Jaarboek, 2014). Educational level, gender and age
are not expected to have significant direct effects or interactions in this experiment. Therefore the
use of this sample is justified.
Table 2 Current or finished education.
Frequency
Valid Percent
VMBO
7
3.8
HAVO
14
7.7
VWO
13
7.1
MBO
17
9.3
HBO
59
32.2
WO
66
36.1
Other
7
3.8
Total
183
100.0
The survey design allows a between subjects analysis. The changes in attitude and likelihood to buy
are measured per individual. Every individual can only be part of one group. Since the experiment
did not include a control group for non-negative publicity, the absolute change in attitudes due to
negative publicity was not statistically measurable. Although interesting, this was not the goal of the
experiment. Rather, the differences in delta attitudes between the scenarios were the main research
goal. From a managerial point of view, it is most important to know what the most appropriate
response to negative publicity is, rather than the absolute impact. Furthermore, absolute impact has
been the part of numerous studies (Fan, Geddes, & Flory, 2011; Kalaitzandonakes, Marks, & Vickner,
2004; Sago & Hinnenkamp,2014; Stammerjohan, Wood, Chang, & Thorson, 2005).
26
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
The external validity of the experiment is affected by three main factors: people, places, and times
(Lynch, 1982). Regarding the people factor; the sample is non-random, limiting the generalizability of
the results. The unrepresentative share of highly educated people could have some impact on the
results as highly educated people are known to pay more attention to both news and personal
health. No significant support for different delta consumer brand attitudes between the educational
levels is found, as seen in Table 3.
The ANOVA tests for a different effect on delta brand attitude for each of the six groups, two brands
times three response strategies per brand. Article negativity is added to since it accounts for a
substantial part of the variance explained. By adding education, the hypothesis that the impact on
delta brand attitude is different for people with different educational levels is tested. That would
implicate that higher educated people react either more negative or less negative to negative
publicity compared to people with less high education. The insignificant result indicates no support
for this hypothesis. Education does not play a role in the change of consumer brand attitudes after
negative publicity. This justifies the use of the somewhat higher educated than average sample.
Table 3 ANOVA test on educational effects on delta brand attitude.
(N=183)
Source
Corrected Model
SS
df
MS
F
p
60.808a
12
5.067
4.195
.000
Intercept
8.098
1
8.098
6.704
.010
ARTC.NEG
32.105
1
32.105
26.577
.000
EDUCATION
7.424
6
1.237
1.024
.411
SCENARIO.123
9.594
2
4.797
3.971
.021
.194
1
.194
.161
.689
3.130
.046
BRAND
SCENARIO.123 * BRAND
7.561
2
3.781
Error
205.360
170
1.208
Total
425.333
183
Corrected Total
266.169
182
a. R2 = .228 (Adj. R2 = .174)
Regarding the places criterion, cultural factors are not expected to have a substantial impact on the
relationship between negative publicity and brand attitudes and buying likelihood. By using a global
brand and a national brand it is supposed that the place factor does not play a role when
generalizing the results for Western countries.
Time: The study was done in the summer, for beverage brands. It is possible that attitudes towards
beverage brands are different in the summer, when consumers spend more time outside. For the
delta brand attitudes, no significant difference of the factor time is expected. Next to that, no
27
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
significant real world publicity on beverage brands was observed in the period of the study and the
weeks before.
3.2.1: Response bias
Socially desirable response is a risk to the validity of every survey (Steenkamp, De Jong, &
Baumgartner, 2009). It is a form of response bias in which a respondent selects answers to make him
or herself look good. Surveys with controversial subjects, such as the use of alcohol or illegal drugs,
are more vulnerable to this response bias. The survey’s anonymous design somewhat limits the bias,
but it is not practically possible to eliminate socially desirable response bias.
In this survey, a respondent could try to be a good experimental respondent by reporting lower
brand attitude after the negative news. In the initial setup of the experiment, respondents had to
report their attitude at the start of the survey, after reading the news article, and after the company
response. To lessen this form of response bias, the questions about brand attitudes after reading the
news were removed. However, response bias may still exist in the final design of the experiment.
To reduce bias any further, respondents were told that the survey was about consumer behaviour.
Due to the randomised scenarios, respondents did not know about the fact that multiple scenarios
existed. A check on IP-addresses minimised the possibility of a single person filling out the survey
multiple times.
3.2.2: Validity of scales
Spears and Singh (2004) analysed brand attitude and purchase intention scales used in marketing
literature. They propose a set of questions based on research on all scales used. The questions in the
survey are based on the English counterparts of their suggestions. Attitude towards the brand is
measured on a seven point scale, on three topics: unappealing/appealing, bad/good, and
unfavourable/favourable. The brand attitude is calculated by taking the sum of the answers on
brand attitude and dividing it by three.
Purchase intentions are measured on a five point scale, ranging from definitely would not buy to
definitely would buy. The question is related to a relevant time frame (within the next 10 days) to
provide respondents with a clear question. The interpretation of the question without a timeframe
could significantly differ amongst respondents and therefore make it harder to interpret results.
28
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
All questions and rating scales are based on literature in the most credible marketing journals
(Menon, Jewell, & Unnava, 1999; Tolboom, Bronner, & Smit, 2012). This increases replicability and
makes it easier to compare results over studies.
In Appendix 2 the full survey can be found. The questions used for analysis are described in detail
here.
1. On brand familiarity – FAM.t1
Scale of 1 to 5
How familiar are you with [Coca Cola / First Choice]?
Totally Unknown – Somewhat Unknown – Neutral – Somewhat Known – Totally Known
2. On consumer brand attitudes – ATT.time1 / ATT.time2
Scale of 1 to 7, calculated attitude is the average of the answers for the three questions.
What is you impression of [Coca Cola / First Choice]?
Unappealing
Bad
Negative
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Appealing
Good
Positive
3. On likelihood to buy – BUY_INTENT.t1 / BUY_INTENT.t2
Scale of 1 to 5. The 10 days’ time factor is used to make the question more relevant.
How likely is it that you buy [Coca Cola / First Choice] in the next 10 days?
Absolutely Not – Probably Not – Neutral – Probably – Absolutely
4. On article negativity – ARTC.NEG:
Scale of 1 to 5
What do you think of the news about [Coca Cola / First Choice]?
Very positive – Positive – Neutral – Negative – Very Negative
5. On source credibility – SOURCE.CRED:
Scale of 1 to 5
Rate the following statement
I find the news article about [Coca Cola / First Choice] believable
29
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Strongly Agree – Agree – Neither Agree Nor Disagree – Disagree – Strongly Disagree
6. On attitude towards response – ATT.RESPONSE:
Scale of 1 to 5, calculated attitude is the average of the answers for the three questions.
Rate the following statements
I find the response of [Coca Cola / First Choice] positive
I find the response of [Coca Cola / First Choice] believable
I find the response of [Coca Cola / First Choice] strong
Strongly Agree – Agree – Neither Agree Nor Disagree – Disagree – Strongly Disagree
7. On education – EDUCATION
Recoded values, most common education levels in The Netherlands are used.
What is your highest finished or current educational level?
(1) VMBO
(2) HAVO
(3) VWO
(4) MBO
(5) HBO
(6) WO
(7) Other, please specify …
3.2.3: Manipulation checks
To check the whether or not the manipulations are perceived as intended, the survey includes
questions on brand familiarity, perceived article negativity and on response positivity.
Brand familiarity was added to check for a significant difference in familiarity between Coca Cola and
First Choice. Results show that indeed Coca Cola is considered more familiar, t(162.2) = 13.26, p <
.001.
The news article is perceived as negative or somewhat negative, MeanCocaColaNews = 3.62 and
MeanFirstChoiceNews = 4.01. Article negativity is measured on a scale of five, where one is very positive
and five is very negative. The difference between the perceived negativity is significant, t(187) = 2.86, p = .005. The articles are perceived as negative as intended.
30
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Figure 2 Histogram of perceived article negativity.
In Figure 2 the spread of perceived article negativity is shown. It is clear that for First Choice, the
pattern is different as compared to Coca Cola. The difference in perceived negativity between
brands can be explained by the theory discussed in Chapter 2.1.5, which states that consumers
perceive information as less negative if it concerns their favourite or familiar brands (Ahluwalia,
Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000).
Figure 3 Histogram of perceived company response positivity.
Concerning the positivity of the company response, Figure 3 displays respondents’ answers. There is
no support for a difference of response positivity between brands, t(121.6) = 1.23, p = .219. In other
words, respondents do not experience the response more positive for one of the brands.
Significant difference between attitude towards response between response strategies, t(120.6) = 6.72, p < .001. The Adaptation of new processes response is perceived as more positive. The
manipulation is perceived as it was intended.
31
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
3.2.4: Outlier
One outlier was found in the Coca Cola Denial of severity group. It has the theoretical maximum
delta consumer brand attitude of -6, and the delta likelihood to buy decreased to the minimum of 1
from the maximum of 5. All calculations are done including this outlier. Where appropriate, the
analysis is also run without the outlier and the impact of the outlier is stated. Analyses excluding this
outlier are accompanied by a footnote. Test including perceived article negativity or attitude
towards company response are not affected by this outlier, as this respondent did not answer the
related questions.
4: Results
4.1: Differences between response strategies
4.1.1: Effect on delta consumer brand attitude
The first hypothesis compares the three different response strategies companies follow in the
experiment.
H1:
The three company response strategies have different effects on the delta consumer
brand attitude.
Using an ANOVA analysis, no significant support for differences between the means of the consumer
brand attitude under the three scenarios can be found (Table 4). The low R-square value (R2 = .014)
indicates the result is not useful for prediction.
Table 4 ANOVA test of between subjects effects on delta
brand attitude. (N=211) 1
Source
SS
Corrected Model
Intercept
SCENARIO.123
df
MS
2.144
1.473
.232
159.650
1
159.650
109.645
.000
1.473
.232
4.289
2
2.144
302.861
208
1.456
Total
466.444
211
307.150
210
a.
R2
= .014 (Adj.
R2
p
2
Error
Corrected Total
F
4.289a
= .004)
1
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. Including the outlier does not make a difference in the
results, N = 212, df= 2, F = 1.00, p = .371, R2 = .009.
32
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Further research revealed the reason for the lack of significant results. As it turns out, the delta
consumer brand attitude is influenced by the perceived negativity of the news article. As some
respondents do not perceive the article as negative as others, they do not change their attitude as
the others do. By controlling for this effect, there is a significant difference between the means of
the three groups for the differences in delta consumer brand attitude, as can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5 ANOVA test of between subjects effects on delta
brand attitude, including article negativity. (N=189)
Source
SS
Corrected Model
47.850a
3
15.950
12.670
.000
Intercept
9.393
1
9.393
7.461
.007
ARTC.NEG
40.511
1
40.511
32.180
.000
3.267
.040
SCENARIO.123
df
MS
8.227
2
4.113
Error
232.890
185
1.259
Total
442.778
189
Corrected Total
280.741
188
F
p
a. R2 = .170 (Adj. R2 = .157)
In a pairwise comparison significant support for a difference between the Denial of severity response
(I) and the No response strategy (J) is found, Mean difference (I-J)= .501, p = .012. This indicates
higher delta consumer brand attitude for the Denial of severity response strategy. Whereas
companies who do not respond experience a drop of 1.178 in attitude, companies who deny the
severity of the event only have .677 lower brand attitudes as compared to the initial consumer
brand attitudes (Figure 4).
Concluding, H1 is supported. There is a significant difference in delta consumer brand attitudes for
different response strategies, when corrected for perceived article negativity.
33
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Figure 4 Estimated effect of response strategy on consumer brand attitudes.
It is important to note that the respondent group size differs between aforementioned tests. Some
respondents did not answer the question about perceived article negativity, but are included in the
ANOVA of Table 4. An repeated test, without the respondents who did not answer the specified
question, revealed similar results to the results in Table 3, F(1,188) = 2.50, p = .085. Without
controlling for perceived article negativity, the response strategy does not have a significant effect
on delta consumer brand attitude. This confirms the conclusion on H1.
4.1.2: Ranking strategies
H1a, b and c state the ranking of the response strategies.
H1a: “No company response” will have the strongest negative effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
H1b: “Denial of severity” will have a somewhat negative effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
H1c: “Adaptation of new processes” will have a minimal effect on delta consumer brand
attitude.
An ANOVA on delta consumer brand attitude, with perceived article negativity as covariate, was
performed to test these hypotheses (N = 189, Article negativity mean = 3.82). No company response
has the most negative estimated mean, at -1.178, followed by adaptation response at -.945, and
34
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
finally the denial of severity response at -.677. Although the difference between the No response
and the Denial of severity group was found to be significant in the previous analysis, the Adaptation
response does not differ significantly from both other groups (p = .187 and p = .257). Concluding,
there is not enough support for the ranking of the response strategies.
Further analysis of the ANOVA on delta consumer brand attitude, with perceived article negativity as
covariate, is done for each brand separately. When comparing the different response strategies per
brand, only in Coca Cola scenarios a significant difference between response strategies can be found.
In a pairwise comparison of the Response strategies (Table 6) the No response strategy for Coca Cola
results in lower delta consumer brand attitudes as compared to the Adaptation and Denial
strategies.
Table 6 Pairwise comparisons of Coca Cola response strategies on delta attitude (N=91)
95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb
(I) SCENARIO.123
(J) SCENARIO.123
Mean
Difference (I-J)
S.E.
Coca Cola
Adaptation
Coca Cola Denial
-.265
Coca Cola Denial
Coca Cola No
Response
pvalueb
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
.260
.311
-.782
.252
.716*
.265
.008
.190
1.242
Coca Cola Adaptation
.265
.260
.311
-.252
.782
Coca Cola No Response
.981*
.260
.000
.464
1.499
Coca Cola Adaptation
-.716*
.265
.008
-1.242
-.190
Coca Cola Denial
-.981*
.260
.000
-1.499
-.464
Coca Cola No Response
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
The same analysis is also done for First Choice. No significant differences between response
strategies are reported (Table 7). The ranking of strategies as hypothesised in H1a, b, and c is not
supported for this brand.
35
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Table 7 Pairwise comparisons of First Choice response strategies on delta attitude (N=98)
95% Confidence Interval for
Differencea
(I) SCENARIO.123
(J) SCENARIO.123
Mean
Difference (I-J)
S.E.
pvaluea
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
First Choice
Adaptation
First Choice Denial
-.302
.305
.324
-.907
.303
First Choice No Response
-.209
.310
.502
-.824
.407
First Choice Adaptation
.302
.305
.324
-.303
.907
First Choice No Response
.093
.286
.745
-.475
.662
.209
.310
.502
-.407
.824
-.093
.286
.745
-.662
.475
First Choice Denial
First Choice No
Response
First Choice Adaptation
First Choice Denial
Based on estimated marginal means
a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
4.2: Brand attitudes and likelihood to buy
The next step of evaluating the impact of response strategies to negative publicity is to check
whether the change in consumer brand attitudes is reflected in the likelihood to buy.
H2:
Decreasing delta consumer brand attitude will decrease consumers’ delta likelihood to
buy.
The regression analysis of Table 8 shows significant support for the prediction of the delta likelihood
to buy by the delta consumer brand attitude. An increase of one in consumer brand attitudes,
measured on a seven point scale, is predicted to be lead to an increase of .262 in the likelihood to
buy, on a five point scale.
Table 8 Regression of delta consumer brand attitudes on delta
likelihood to buy. (N=211) 2
Variable
b
S.E.
(Constant)
.138
.058
DELTA.ATT
.262
.039
β
.421
t
p-value
2.367
.019
6.700
.000
R2 = .177; F = 44.90 (p-value < .001).
The R-square is adequate considering the experimental nature of the study. H2 is supported; there is
significant support for correlation of delta consumer brand attitude and delta likelihood to buy. As
consumers’ attitude towards the brand decreases, so does their intention to buy the brands’
products. As expected in Chapter 2.1.3, the likelihood to buy does not decrease as strong as the
brand attitudes. Consumers may have previous knowledge about brands and still prefer the brand
2
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. Including outlier: N = 212. b = .301, t = 7.81, p < .001; R2 =
.225; F = 61.00
36
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
over others. For unfamiliar brands, likelihood to buy is supposedly already at low levels and strong
reactions are therefore exceptional. Another explanation is that the lower brand attitudes do not
exceed a threshold, and therefore the affected brand is still the preferred one.
4.3: Brand familiarity
4.3.1: Effect on delta consumer brand attitude
Continuing that line of thought, consumers are expected to respond differently to less familiar
brands. In the survey, respondents were asked to evaluate the level of familiarity they had with Coca
Cola and First Choice. Well-known brands are expected to have formed a buffer in the minds of
consumers, as the associative network for the brand is enriched with previous news, advertising,
product experiences and more.
H3a: Higher consumer brand familiarity will positively correlate with delta consumer brand
attitude, i.e. well-known companies experience a smaller impact on brand attitudes.
Table 9 Regression of brand familiarity on delta brand attitude. (N=189)
Variable
b
S.E.
(Constant)
.792
.414
FAM.t1
.021
.053
ARTC.NEG
-.470
.087
R2
β
t
p-value
1.915
.057
.027
.400
.689
-.372
-5.428
.000
= .142; F = 15.38 (p-value < .001).
From Table 9, there is no significant support for H3a. Brand familiarity does not predict the change in
consumer brand attitude. Clearly, respondents’ reaction on negative publicity is as negative for wellknown as for less-known brands. Understandably, higher brand familiarity did correspond with
higher brand attitudes, r(209) = .56, p < .01. But at the different levels of brand attitudes, negative
publicity did not result in significantly different reaction. As in Chapter 4.1, perceived article
negativity is included in the model.
The difference between the mean brand attitude at time one (4.42) and at time two (3.55) is
significant, t(210) = 10.44, p < .0013. On average, respondents have a .89 lower brand attitude on a
seven point scale. This rules out the explanation that there is no interaction with brand familiarity
due to lack of significant changes in brand attitude itself.
3
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. Including outlier: t(211) = 10.35, p < .0013.
37
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
4.3.2: Effect on delta likelihood to buy
As brand familiarity did not have a direct effect on delta brand attitudes, the impact on delta
likelihood to buy is most likely also insignificant.
H3b: Higher consumer brand familiarity will positively correlate with delta likelihood to buy.
Table 10 Regression of brand familiarity on delta likelihood to buy. (N=211) 4
Variable
b
S.E.
(Constant)
.004
.134
FAM.t1
-.025
.034
β
-.052
t
p-value
0.026
.979
-.757
.450
R2 = .003; F = .57 (p-value = .450).
The results in Table 10 confirm this prediction, as the results are highly insignificant. H3b is thus not
supported. The reaction of consumers to more familiar brands does not differ from the reaction to
an unfamiliar brand. Article negativity is not included in this analysis, as it is not hypothesised to
directly affect delta likelihood to buy. Based on the review of literature, these results are
unexpected. No support for the buffer effect can be found, in which more familiar brands are
protected for immediate damage as consumers make choices based on more information than a
single news article and the accompanying company response (Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991). On
the other hand, the competing prominent fall theory cannot be supported as well.
A possible explanation on the lack of impact of brand familiarity might be related to the
questionnaire. Respondents are asked to evaluate their brand familiarity on a five point scale,
ranging from fully unknown (1) to fully known (5).
Table 11 Brand familiarity counts. (N=211) 5
FAM.t1
1
2
3
4
5
Coca Cola
2
2
2
8
90
First Choice
33
23
9
31
11
Table 11 shows the distribution of answers on brand familiarity. The results for Coca Cola are not
unexpected, 94% indicates familiarity or high familiarity with Coca Cola. The familiarity with First
Choice is more evenly spread. These results do not indicate misunderstanding of the question. The
explanatory power of the test may be lower due to the almost unanimous fully familiar score for
4
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. Including outlier: N = 212. b = -.035, t = -.996, p = .320; R2 =
.005; F =.99
5
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. The outlier adds 1 to Coca Cola – Familiarity = 5, resulting in
91 for that group.
38
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Coca Cola. However, a regression for First Choice of brand familiarity on delta likelihood to buy did
not have significant results (Table 12).
Table 12 Regression of brand familiarity on delta likelihood to buy
for First Choice (N=107)
Variable
b
(Constant)
-.054
.148
.017
.049
FAM.t1
R2
S.E.
β
.033
t
p-value
-.366
.715
.343
.732
= .001; F = .12 (p-value = .732).
Regarding H3b, the impact of familiarity on delta likelihood to buy, limited explanatory power is
most likely the result of the very small delta likelihood to buy itself. Only 16% of the respondents
(N=212) reported a lower likelihood to buy, where 7% reported an increased likelihood to buy. The
remaining 78% did report the no change in likelihood to buy. The difference between the likelihood
to buy at time one and at time two is not significant, t(210) = 1.74, p = .0846.
Figure 5 Frequencies of delta likelihood to buy.
In Figure 5 the delta likelihood to buy is presented. Obviously, the negative publicity did not have a
strong negative effect on the likelihood to buy. This indicates that consumers perceive the news as
not severe or credible enough to make different buying decisions.
6
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. Including outlier: t(211) = 1.98, p = .049. The outlier creates
a marginally significant result, but the measured change in likelihood to buy is only small: from 2.25 (time 1) to
2.14 (time 2).
39
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
4.4: Article negativity
How consumer perceive news articles and how negative publicity impacts attitudes and choices is
personal. Where some may find an article very negative, others might find it irrelevant or not
negative at all. It is hypothesized that respondents who perceive an article as more negative will
have stronger reactions as measured by delta brand attitude. In Chapter 4.1.1 it was found that
article negativity needs to be controlled for to find different effects between response strategies.
H4:
Perceived article negativity will negatively affect delta consumer brand attitude.
To test this hypothesis, an ANOVA of article negativity and response strategy on delta brand attitude
was performed. Response strategy was included to divide the respondents in groups. In Table 5
results of this ANOVA are displayed. The perceived negativity of the article has a significant effect on
the delta brand attitude, F(1,188) = 32.18, p < .001.
Regression analysis confirms the result, β = -.48, t(188) = -5.54, p < .001, indicating that a one point
higher perceived article negativity (on a five point scale) leads to almost half a point more negative
delta brand attitude (on a seven point scale). H4 is supported.
The model was extended to test for significant differences between the three response strategies for
each brand specifically. The factor BRAND, which holds either Coca Cola or First Choice, was added.
An interaction effect, SCENARIO.123*BRAND, representing the six different scenarios in the
experiment design was added.
Table 13 ANOVA test of Between subjects effects on delta brand attitude. (N=189)
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
8.123
6.567
.000
1
165.358
133.685
.000
1
36.623
29.608
.000
0.44
1
.438
.354
.552
SCENARIO.123
8.98
2
4.492
3.631
.028
BRAND
0.11
1
.106
.085
.770
SCENARIO.123 * BRAND
8.55
2
4.274
3.456
.034
Error
223.88
181
1.237
Total
442.78
189
Corrected Total
280.74
188
Corrected Model
56.86a
7
Intercept
165.36
36.62
FAM.t1.cent
ARTC.NEG.CENT
a. R2 = .203 (Adj. R2 = .172)
Table 13 confirms earlier results on article negativity and response strategy. The added BRAND
factor does not significantly improve the model. There is support for an interaction between brand
and response strategy, indicating that the mean delta brand attitude differs significantly between
40
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
brands under a specific scenario. The No company response strategy for Coca Cola leads to a
considerable lower estimated mean delta brand attitude, as seen in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Estimated delta consumer brand attitude.
Table 14 Estimated Marginal Means of interaction Scenario.123*BRAND on delta brand
attitude. (N=189)
95% Confidence Interval
BRAND
Coca Cola
Mean
-.821a
S.E.
.205
Lower Bound
-1.225
Upper Bound
-.418
-.549a
.200
-.944
-.154
No company response
-1.526a
.207
-1.934
-1.118
Adaptation response
-1.083a
.215
-1.507
-.659
Denial of severity response
-.795a
.185
-1.159
-.430
No company response
-.872a
.192
-1.251
-.492
Adaptation response
Denial of severity response
First Choice
a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: ARTC.NEG.CENT = .0000,
FAM.t1.cent = -.0122.
The results in Table 14 suggest that for Coca Cola it is important to respond to negative publicity, just
like in Figure 6. In the No company response scenario, the delta consumer brand attitude is
significantly lower than in either the Adaptation or Denial of severity response scenario. This is
41
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
supported by Independent sample T-tests, t(59.68) = 2.17, p = .034; t(59.04) = 2.36, p = .0227
respectively.
A Denial of severity response has the smallest impact on consumer brand attitudes in the Coca Cola
scenarios, but this result is not significant. An independent sample T-test of the Adaptation response
versus the Denial of severity response confirms this result, t(67) = -.23, p = .8188.
For First Choice the three response strategies do not lead to significantly different results in delta
brand attitude. The absolute brand attitudes for First Choice are lower compared to Coca Cola,
which limits the possibilities for a strong negative delta brand attitude (Figure 7a). Consequently,
this limits the possibility of statistical differences between response strategies. Figure 7b shows the
attitudes at time 2. It clearly shows that brand attitudes for First Choice are near the absolute
minimum. Larger samples or more precise measurement of brand attitudes is recommended to find
differences or to confirm this result. Alternatively, the responses presented to respondents could be
re-written in more extreme styles, to make it easier to detect differences. However, this would limit
the external validity as it does not resemble real life events.
Figure 7a Consumer brand attitude time 1
Figure 7b Consumer brand attitude time 2.
Coca Cola and First Choice have been compared head to head for each response strategy. No
significant differences were found, therefore concluding that the response strategies have no
statistically different effect on delta brand attitudes for different brands. T-tests on the means of
7
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. Result including the outlier: t(67.62) = 1.60, p = .115. The
outlier would invalidate the results for the Denial of severity scenario as compared to the No response
scenario.
8
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. Result including the outlier: t(68) = .37, p = .701.
42
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
delta brand attitude for both brands has the following results: Adaptation of new processes, t(54.88)
= 1.65, p = .105; Denial of severity, t(71) = 1.50, p = .1379; No response, t(68) = -.83, p = .409.
4.5: Source credibility
Not all publicity is seen equally. The perceived credibility of a medium is predicted to moderate the
effect of negative publicity on brand attitudes. As consumers perceive the article as more credible, it
is expected that they react stronger.
H5:
Perceived source credibility will negatively affect delta consumer brand attitude.
Table 15 Regression of source credibility on delta likelihood to buy. (N=189)
Variable
b
S.E.
(Constant)
-.721
.135
ARTC.NEG.CENT
-.435
.086
No.response
-.460
Adaptation.response
SOURCE.CRED.CENT
β
t
p-value
-5.349
.000
-.344
-5.082
.000
.193
-.178
-2.378
.018
-.167
.202
-.063
-.830
.407
-.246
.087
-.192
-2.831
.005
R2 = .205; F = 11,87 (p-value < .001).
Table 15 provides significant support for H5, higher perceived source credibility affects the delta
brand attitude negatively. The R2 of the model is satisfactory. Respondents rated the source
credibility as reasonable credible (M = 3.28, SD = .96). The standard deviation shows sufficient
variation. An ANOVA confirmed the significant main effect for source credibility, F(1, 188) = 8.079, p
= .005.
Introducing the BRAND factor to the model (Table 16) slightly increases the R2, to 23.7% from 20.7%
(Adj. R2 to 20.3% from 18.5%) The interaction effect of BRAND with response strategy is significant,
as it was in previous tests.
9
Excluding the outlier mentioned in Chapter 3.2.4. Result including the outlier: t(72) = .82, p = .418.
43
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Table 16 ANOVA test of between subjects effects on delta brand attitude. (N=189)
Source
SS
F
p
Corrected Model
66.421a
8
8.303
6.973
.000
Intercept
164.912
1
164.912
138.504
.000
28.530
1
28.530
23.961
.000
9.562
1
9.562
8.031
.005
.569
1
.569
.478
.490
7.560
2
3.780
3.175
.044
.225
1
.225
.189
.664
3.410
.035
ARTC.NEG.CENT
SOURCE.CRED.CENT
FAM.t1.cent
SCENARIO.123
BRAND
SCENARIO.123 * BRAND
df
MS
8.121
2
4.060
Error
214.320
180
1.191
Total
442.778
189
Corrected Total
a. R2 = .237 (Adj. R2 = .203)
280.741
188
4.6: Attitudes towards company response
In two of the three scenarios, the news article is directly followed by a company response. As with
negative publicity, it is expected that consumers vary in their reaction to the response based how
they perceive the response of the company.
H6:
Attitude towards company response will negatively moderate the effect of negative
publicity and company response on delta consumer brand attitude.
Table 17 contains the results of the ANOVA for H6. The interaction effect was removed since the
design of the test differs from the earlier tests. The test design is a 2x2 between subjects ANOVA
with two brands and two response strategies. The No response strategy was not included since the
attitude towards the response was non-existent for that group.
44
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Table 17 ANOVA on response attitude effects on delta brand attitude. (N=126)
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
64.933a
25
2.597
2.250
.002
Intercept
4.333
1
4.333
3.753
.056
ARTC.NEG
15.440
1
15.440
13.373
.000
ATT.RESPONSE
15.175
12
1.265
1.095
.372
SCENARIO.123
2.231
1
2.231
1.932
.168
BRAND
1.845
1
1.845
1.598
.209
17.628
10
1.763
1.527
.141
Error
115.453
100
1.155
Total
259.222
126
Corrected Total
a. R2 = .360 (Adj. R2 = .200)
180.385
125
Corrected Model
ATT.RESPONSE * SCENARIO.123
The results of the ANOVA indicate no significant effect of the attitude towards the company
response on the delta brand attitude. Companies do not have to choose the response strategy with
the highest expected attitude towards the response, as it does not predict delta consumer brand
attitudes. In other words, a disliked company response does not lead to lower attitudes towards the
brand.
The attitude towards the response does not moderate the effect of the response strategies on the
delta consumer brand attitude. The interaction effect is insignificant, H6 is not supported. Put
otherwise, the effect of the response strategy does not change for different levels of attitude
towards the response.
In Chapter 2.1.6, it is hypothesised that the perceived source credibility of the article is higher than
the perceived credibility of the company response. The mean source credibility is slightly higher at
3.28 versus 3.13 for response credibility, but there is no support for a significant difference, t(125) =
1.14, p = .257. The mean of just over three out of five indicates that respondents perceived both the
credibility of the source and the response as neutral/somewhat believable. A higher credibility might
have increased the effect of the news article and the company response.
5: General discussion
The experiment resulted in the confirmation of some theories, but also in some interesting new
findings. Different response styles do lead to different outcomes, but not exactly as expected.
Unsurprisingly, the No company response strategy leads to the strongest drop in consumer brand
attitudes. Rather remarkably, the Denial of severity response performed significantly better than the
45
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
No company response strategy. Prior research indicated that a denial response would lead to about
the same effect as a no response strategy, depending on circumstances (Bradford & Garrett, 1995).
This difference can be explained by the exact denial message, in this case a denial of severity of the
event, where it could also be a denial of the event itself.
The most interesting finding was the effect of perceived article negativity. It turned out to be one of
the most important factors in the model. By controlling for perceived article negativity, differences
between response strategies became clear. For further research it is advised to control for individual
perceived negativity instead of just using a measurement on the general negativity of an article.
News articles regarding the less-known brand First Choice are perceived significantly more negative
compared to the articles regarding the well-known brand Coca Cola. Since article negativity is an
excellent predictor for attitude change, it suggests that less-known brands suffer more under
negative publicity. This is confirmed by earlier research (Dawar & Lei, 2009). One could argue that
the buffer effect causes this difference in perceived article negativity. The buffer effect states that
consumers have more robust attitudes towards more familiar or higher reputation brands, and
attitude change is therefore less likely (Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991). There is no support for the
buffer effect in this experiment. The impact of negative publicity for less-known brands is not
significantly different from the effect for well-known brands. If the buffer effect would have been
present, the well-known brand would have had a smaller impact on brand attitudes. Although
respondents rate the article for First Choice as more negative, this does not translate in stronger
negative delta brand attitudes. The predictive power of article negativity is highly individual.
5.1: Answering research questions
5.1.1: Problem Statement
This paper investigates the best response strategy as measured by consumer brand attitudes
for two brands of cola.
Three main response strategies have been defined: Adaptation of new processes, Denial of severity,
and No company response. The Denial of severity response outperforms the No company response
strategy significantly. Based on the results in Chapter 4, the best strategy is to respond to negative
publicity. Both the Adaptation of new processes and the Denial of severity strategy outperform the
No company response strategy.
46
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Table 13 in Chapter 4.4 contains the result of an ANOVA including the interaction of response
strategy and brand (Scenario.123*BRAND). This significant interaction indicates that the response
strategies do not have the same effect for both brands.
For Coca Cola, the No company response strategy results in the highest negative impact on
consumer brand attitudes. For Coca Cola, it is important to react timely on news, since the Denial of
severity and the Adaptation response resulted in a smaller impact. There is no clear preference for
one of the two scenarios by impact on brand attitudes, but considering the substantial costs of an
Adaptation of new processes response, the Denial of severity strategy may be the most effective. It
is important to note that denial of an event as discussed in some literature (Siomkos & Shrivastava,
1993; Menon, Jewel, & Rao Unnava, 1999; Bradford & Garrett, 1995) is different than denial of
severity. The denial of an event as discussed in prior research differs in the fact that it denies the
whole event, such as an alleged bribery. In others (Laufer & Coombs, 2006) it denies the risk or
threat, but does not deny the circumstances or event, just like this experiment. The Denial of
severity is expected to work when consumers accept the explanation and find that the risk does not
have an impact on them.
For First Choice, the three strategies did not have significantly different results. This is somewhat
surprising, given the reported differences between scenarios for Coca Cola. The respondents in First
Choice scenarios did not attach high value to the response of the company to the allegations. This
could be because the respondents are not impacted themselves, as they are in general more
unfamiliar with the brand and thus do not consume it regularly.
The mean delta consumer brand attitude for First Choice did also not differ significantly from the
Coca Cola equivalent. There is no support for either the buffer effect (Griffin, Babin, & Attaway,
1991), in which more familiar brands experience a smaller impact on brand attitudes, or for the
prominent fall effect (Korkofingas & Ang, 2011), where higher quality or higher reputation brands
are theorized to see a higher impact on brand attitudes.
When comparing the effects between brands, no difference in Adaptation of new processes and
Denial of severity was found. Consumers react as strongly on negative publicity in combination with
a company response for the well-known brand as for the less-known brand. In the No response
strategy, consumers report a stronger drop in attitudes for Coca Cola. As the well-known and higher
reputation brand, consumers demand a response. The allegations are not in line with the
expectations of customers for high reputation brands, and without a response consumers are left in
47
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
an ambiguous situation and are not sure of the impact and relevance of the event (Dean, 2004;
Korkofingas & Ang, 2011).
A summary of all hypotheses and results is presented in Table 18.
Table 18 Overview of hypotheses
H1:
The three company response strategies have different effects on the delta consumer brand
attitude.
Supported, when controlled for perceived article negativity.
H1a:
“No company response” will have the strongest negative effect on delta consumer brand attitude.
Supported for well-known brand
H1b:
“Denial of severity” will have a somewhat negative effect on delta consumer brand attitude.
Not Supported, no significant difference with Adaptation strategy
H1c:
“Adaptation of new processes” will have a minimal effect on delta consumer brand attitude.
Not Supported, no significant difference with Denial strategy
H2:
Decreasing delta consumer brand attitude will decrease consumers’ delta likelihood to buy.
Supported
H3a:
Higher consumer brand familiarity will positively correlate with delta consumer brand attitude, i.e.
well-known companies experience a smaller impact on brand attitudes.
Not supported
H3b:
Higher consumer brand familiarity will positively correlate with delta likelihood to buy.
Not supported
H4:
Perceived article negativity will negatively affect delta consumer brand attitude.
Supported
H5:
Perceived source credibility will negatively affect delta consumer brand attitude.
Supported
H6:
Attitude towards company response will negatively moderate the effect of negative publicity and
company response on delta consumer brand attitude.
Not supported
5.1.2: Research question 1
What is the effect of negative publicity on consumer brand attitudes?
Extensive literature (Kalaitzandonakes, Marks, & Vickner, 2004; Kasperson et al, 1988; Tolboom,
Bronner, & Smit, 2012) on the subject shows that negative publicity lowers consumer brand
attitudes. This research confirms this negative impact of publicity. In the experiment, the magnitude
of the negative impact is measured, but cannot be confirmed as the experiment did not contain a
no-news scenario.
48
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
The impact of negative publicity is personal, as it is highly related to perceived article negativity.
Further research could focus on why consumers find an article negative. The seriousness of the
event, the relevance of the news, knowledge about the subject and the risk, and level of
consumption are most probably the relevant factors.
Significant support for source credibility was also found. The stronger effect of credible media is also
found in a study of Fan, Geddes, and Flory (2011), where numerous blogs did not have a significant
effect on brand attitudes, but traditional media did. It appears that consumers find the risk more
valid when it appears in credible media.
5.1.3: Research question 2
Can a company’s response strategy limit the effect of negative publicity on consumer brand
attitudes?
Well-known brands benefit from a response to negative publicity. For less-known brands, the chosen
strategy did not result in different levels of impact on consumer brand attitude.
Negative publicity leads to lower attitudes in all tested scenarios, and a response was not able to
prevent damage. Bradford and Garrett (1995) did find positive effects of negative publicity if
countered well, arguing that the company did not have control over the situation. Given the scenario
described in this experiment, a positive nett impact was not expected.
Siomkos and Shrivastava (1993) argue that high-reputation firms benefit from a strong response in
the form of a product recall when products are determined to be unsafe. Low-reputation firms
should use an even stronger response by recalling the products and by being transparent about risks
and procedures. These recommendations suppose a serious product harm crisis, which is not the
case in the current experiment. It is not surprising that consequently the best response strategy in
this case is different.
Well-known brands such as Coca Cola can minimise damage to the brand by responding with either
an announcement of the adaptation of new processes, or by denying the severity of the risk. Both
response strategies effectively state that consumers do not need to worry about consuming the
product. In the No response scenario, consumers do not know if the risks are valid and as a result
lower their attitudes towards the brand.
49
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
For less-known brands such as First Choice in the experiment the response strategy did not matter.
As consumers are not impacted by the news, they do not attach much value to the response of the
company. The prominent fall effect introduced by Korkofingas and Ang (2011) finds support, albeit
only in the No response scenario.
Laufer and Coombs (2006) note that a super effort, comparable to this research’ adaptation
response, can harm a company when consumer perceive it as an overreaction. This might be the
reason for the lack of difference in delta brand attitude between the Adaptation of new processes
and the Denial of severity response. In retrospect it is not possible to determine whether or not the
respondents indeed perceived the Adaptation approach as an overreaction. Consequently this could
not be tested.
The attitude towards the company response was not found to predict delta consumer brand
attitudes. As found earlier, it is more important that a response is given. The actual content and
attitude towards the response did not make a difference.
5.1.4: Research question 3
Does company familiarity moderate the effect of negative publicity on consumer brand
attitudes?
Company familiarity can have different impacts according to prior research (Stammerjohan, Wood,
Chang, & Thorson, 2005; Van Riel & Fombrun, 2007). The most common theory for the moderating
effect of familiarity on the impact of publicity is the buffer effect (Griffin, Babin, & Attaway, 1991). In
this experiment, it has no predictive value on delta consumer brand attitudes and on delta likelihood
to buy. It is possible that no effect was found due to the already low initial attitudes for the lessknown brand First Choice. Another possible explanation is that it is not familiarity per se that
differentiates well-known brands from less-known brands, but factors such as reputation, quality,
social responsibility, and personal relevance of the brand. This could be tested by using multiple
brands.
Interestingly, the BRAND factor did have predictive power for both delta consumer brand attitudes
and delta likelihood to buy. It is therefore not the familiarity that affects the expectations and
reactions of consumers on negative publicity, but some other factor that differs between Coca Cola
and First Choice. Brand reputation could be this factor. For instance, consumers may be fully aware
50
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
of both Coca Cola and First Choice, but have higher expectations of Coca Cola. This difference in
expectations is not captured in familiarity but can be captured by brand reputation.
The strong negative reaction of consumers in the Coca Cola No response scenario is not related to
the familiarity with the brand but rather with some other attribute of the Coca Cola brand, which is
lacking for First Choice. Further research could identify this specific factor.
5.1.5: Research question 4
Does negative publicity affect purchase intentions?
Supported by the decision making theory (Bonaiuto et al., 2012) it is found that changes in brand
attitudes cause changes in likelihood to buy. In the experiment, 78% of the respondents did not
change their likelihood to buy. This statistic makes it harder to find results.
No change in likelihood to buy for less-known brand was found. In the initial likelihood to buy, 84%
reported the lowest possible likelihood to buy. Consequently, the possibilities for a lower average
likelihood to buy are very limited.
For Coca Cola, again it is best to respond to the news (Figure 8). The Denial of severity strategy
minimizes the change in likelihood to buy, where the No company response strategy leads to an
estimated drop of .49 on a scale of five. The Adaptation response did not significantly differ from
both other scenarios.
51
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Figure 8 Estimated delta likelihood to buy.
It was assumed that the high brand value of Coca Cola, a function of expected future cash flows,
would limit switching behaviour (Simon & Sullivan, 1993). However, the experiment does not find
support for this theory.
5.2: Academic & Managerial Implications
5.2.1: Academic
This study is useful for academic purposes for a number of reasons. First it replicates parts of
previous research in a new setting, thereby confirming the results.
It does also find contradictory results, which increase the knowledge about negative publicity. For
instance, the response strategies recommended in the paper of Siomkos and Shrivastava (1993) did
not prove useful for the companies in this research.
Next to that, this thesis adds to current literature by setting up an experiment on real world brands
and a realistic news article. The article is serious, but the mentioned risk is not directly life
threatening. A substantial proportion of research on product harm crises, especially case studies, is
about events with casualties (Fan, Geddes, & Flory, 2011; Murray & Shohen, 1992; Nemery, Fischler,
Boogaerts, Lison, & Willems, 2002). These extreme events do not represent regular situations, and
tactics used for them may not be applicable for less serious events.
52
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
The results of this research indicate that it is important to measure article negativity individually. It is
possible to measure the general perceived negativity as manipulation check, but it would disregard
the differences in perception between respondents.
Finally, this research creates a model for the evaluation of the impact of negative publicity. This
model could be improved by including more variables, such as level of news seriousness, company
responsibility, and time since event. The amount of factors influencing the impact of negative
publicity is enormous and analysis of all of them in one model would be highly impractical. Repeated
experiments on negative publicity can identify the most important characteristics. When the most
important factors are known, it will be easier to incorporate the impact of publicity in wider
marketing models.
5.2.2: Managerial
Companies should be alert on possible negative publicity. In a world where information is available
quicker than ever before, the risk of damage to a brand increases. It is found that when well-known
companies do not respond to allegations, that the most damage is done. The ambiguous situation
after a news article gets out disturbs consumers (Laufer & Coombs, 2006), and their attitude
towards the company drops.
Contrary to prior research (Bradford & Garrett, 1995; Menon, Jewell, & Unnava, 1999), it can be the
best strategy to deny allegations, when a good argument can be made. For companies it is important
to know exactly under what circumstances this response can benefit them.
The importance of a corporate response on negative publicity, at least for well-known brands,
creates a need for a swift and clear response. Communication and marketing managers should work
together in preparing guidelines and evaluating possible scenarios to be able to have an immediate
response on allegations (Jeffries-Fox, 2001). In more serious crises, marketing can remind customers
of the negative publicity and should therefore be avoided at first (Stammerjohan, Wood, Chang, &
Thorson, 2005). When the crisis has settled, marketing tools can restore faith in the brand and repair
damage to the brands’ value.
A late response is expected to lead to the same results as a No response scenario, as it creates the
same ambiguous situation. A clear Denial of the severity could be used at first, and when the
situation demands a stronger reaction it is still possible to use an Adaptation response. It should be
avoided to alarm consumers by responding overly enthusiastic. A strong effort does not result in less
damage for the brand, and can be significantly more costly.
53
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
The experiment is interesting for companies, as they cannot do a real world test on the impact of
publicity. For instance, the influence of perceived article negativity could lead to a targeted approach
of customers. Those known to have a strong reaction could be targeted individually or as a group
and receive more information and extra service. Other consumers may find that unnecessary and
are better off with a simple message.
5.3: Limitations & Further Research
5.3.1: Limitations
This research is subject of a range of limitations. The scope of the experiment is restricted to one
level of negative publicity and three response scenarios, for two brands. The number of factors in
the model was constrained by concerns of practicality.
The experiment is subject to all limitations generally applicable to surveys. For instance, consumers
who are surveyed report more extreme intentions (Chandon, Morwitz, & Reinartz, 2005).
The scenarios used in prior research on negative publicity differ from study to study, and this
experiment is no exception. Due to the impossibility of using a standard news article, it is hard to
make comparisons between studies.
A Dutch, fairly high educated sample of respondents was used. The impact of news may be different
in other cultures and for less high educated people. Only 33% of respondents is female. Women do
tend to react stronger on negative news (Laufer & Coombs, 2006). Brand attitudes do not differ
significantly before and after negative news in a research of Sago and Hinnenkamp (2014). In this
experiment, females did react more negative, Mean DifferenceDelta brand attitude = -.42, p = .020. The age
of the respondents has a wider spread than commonly found in academic research, and is somewhat
representative of the Dutch population.
The research design does not include real choices but is limited to reported intentions. Self-reported
attitudes and purchase intentions may be biased to overstate intention and can falsely give
managers and researchers the impression of strong impact. Chandon, Morwitz, and Reinartz (2005)
analysed the validity of self-reported intentions. They conclude that intentions measured in surveys
overstate the effect on real world behaviour. In this experiment actual behaviour is not measured
and therefore some limitations to the results apply. It is expected that the purchase intentions are
correlated with brand attitudes, based on the model of Reibstein (1978).
54
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
An observational study may overcome this problem, although it is nearly impossible to control news
articles and relevant factors without notifying test subjects. Time series analyses have a large
potential in the era of big data and number crunching. However, due to the number of factors of
influence for buying decisions, it is very hard to distil the effect of publicity.
The experiment does not include an analysis of impact of publicity over time. It is focussed on the
short term effect of publicity, which is not expected to last for long when the message is not
repeated. The timing of the company response could also influence results, but it is not possible to
incorporate a gap of a few weeks between the news and the company response, without
respondents being affected by environmental variables outside researchers’ control.
The focus on negative publicity does limit analyses to the direct effect of news articles. The power of
word of mouth is not considered as a factor. Word of mouth may have a positive effect for the
Adaptation strategy, a somewhat positive effect for the Denial of severity strategy and an increasing
negative effect for No response scenarios.
5.3.2: Further research
Further research can focus on minimising the impact of the aforementioned limitations. Of primary
interest would be the interaction of negative publicity with various marketing efforts. Does
advertising dampen the effect of negative publicity? Or can it make matters worse by focussing
attention on the brand? A research on this subject would benefit from an experimental design to
isolate marketing and publicity effects. It requires great effort to set up a research in a real world
setting, but it would be very interesting. One can start with regular monitoring of brand attitudes,
purchase intentions and actual sales data. When negative publicity about the brand gets out,
respondents can be asked whether or not they have seen the news. The regular monitoring creates a
baseline, and the effect of the news can be measured with time series analyses on the per-event and
post-event data. The main drawback of this setup is that a researcher cannot know when negative
publicity is expected and obviously companies try to prevent negative publicity at all.
Other factors that are recommended to be incorporated in new studies are: impact of social
responsibility, effect of publicity over time, different levels of seriousness of the news, and
responsibility of the company. The extensiveness of factors and levels makes for a complex research
design. It also needs very large groups of respondents, as the number of potential scenarios grows
rapidly. Some of these factors have been studied separately, but possible interaction effects cannot
be determined.
55
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Especially interesting would be an analysis of the impact of word of mouth and online sharing on the
effect of company response strategies. More and more brands use social media to manage brand
reputation, answer consumer questions and generate attention and awareness. Consumers may get
used to this direct communication channel and expect companies to give information directly in case
of negative news. Evaluation of impact of the time till first response and the availability of
information could be one of the main subjects of a study. This would give managers guidance on
how fast they would need to react and how much information they should share to minimize the
impact of negative publicity.
A different point of view on effects of negative publicity is to see if negative publicity for one brand
affects consumer brand attitudes for other brands. Siomkos, Triantafillidou, Vassilikopoulou, and
Tsiamis (2010) did research on the threats and opportunities for competitors of a company in
product-harm crisis. Opportunities for further research lie in evaluating different response strategies
for competing brands, both in publicity and in marketing communication. The research design can
have the same basic elements of the current experiment. Instead of company response, a
competitor response or advertisement can be shown. For competitors of companies in a negative
spotlight, this could create opportunities to gain trust or market share. It can also defend
competitors against potential allegations when consumers believe that the problem of the company
is a potential problem for more companies in the industry.
General recommendations on further research are to use a broader and more diverse sample with
different cultural backgrounds in follow-up studies. Improvements in the research design can be
sought in crafting higher credibility articles and more diverse responses. Furthermore, the scale on
which the likelihood to buy is measured should be evaluated. Currently, it reveals no significant
changes. A more detailed scale may be able to produce better results.
6: References
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: the
moderating role of commitment. Journal of marketing research, 37(2), 203-214.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Berger, J., Sorensen, A. T., & Rasmussen, S. J. (2010). Positive effects of negative publicity: when
negative reviews increase sales. Marketing Science, 29(5), 815-827.
56
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Bradford, J. L., & Garrett, D. E. (1995). The effectiveness of corporate communicative responses to
accusations of unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(11), 875-892.
Bonaiuto, M., Caddeo, P., Carrus, G., De Dominicis, S., Maroni, B., & Bonnes, M. (2012). Food
reputation impacts on consumer's food choice. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 17(4), 462-482.
Bond, J., & Kirshenbaum, R. (1998). Under the radar: Talking to today's cynical consumer. New York:
Wiley.
CBS Statistisch Jaarboek. (2014). Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict behavior? Selfgenerated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 1-14.
Coca-Cola en Pepsi passen recept aan om kankerwaarschuwing (2012, March 9). De Volkskrant.
Retrieved from http://www.volkskrant.nl.
Dawar, N., & Lei, J. (2009). Brand crises: the roles of brand familiarity and crisis relevance in
determining the impact on brand evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 509-516.
Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity effects of corporate reputation,
response, and responsibility for a crisis event. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2),
192-211.
Eisend, M., & Küster, F. (2011). The effectiveness of publicity versus advertising: A meta-analytic
investigation of its moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(6), 906921.
Fan, D. P., & Cook, R. D. (2003). A differential equation model for predicting public opinions and
behaviors from persuasive information: application to the Index of Consumer
Sentiment. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27(1), 29-51.
Fan, D., Geddes, D., & Flory, F. (2013). The Toyota Recall Crisis: Media Impact on Toyota's Corporate
Brand Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 16(2), 99-117.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. Advances in
organizational justice, 1, 1-55.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of consumer research, 24(4), 343-353.
Greyser, S. A. (2009). Corporate brand reputation and brand crisis management. Management
Decision, 47(4), 590-602.
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. S. (1991). An empirical investigation of the impact of negative
public publicity on consumer attitudes and intentions. Advances in Consumer
Research, 18(1), 334-341.
57
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Haley, R. I., & Case, P.B. (1979). Testing Thirteen Attitude Scales for Agreement and Brand
Discrimination. Journal or Marketing, 43, 20-32.
Hill, S. J., Lo, J., Vavreck, L., & Zaller, J. (2013). How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion
effects from mass communication. Political Communication, 30(4), 521-547.
"Ingrediënt in cola is kankerverwekkend” (2011, February 2). Het Laatste Nieuws. Retrieved from
http://www.hln.be.
Jeffries-Fox, B. (2001). Toward an understanding of how news coverage and advertising impact
consumer perceptions, attitudes and behavior. Institute for Public Relations.
Kalaitzandonakes, N., Marks, L. A., & Vickner, S. S. (2004). Media coverage of biotech foods and
influence on consumer choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(5), 12381246.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X. & Ratick, S.
(1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk analysis, 8(2), 177-187.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American psychologist, 28(2), 107.
Korkofingas, C., & Ang, L. (2011). Product recall, brand equity, and future choice. Journal of
Marketing Management, 27(9-10), 959-975.
Laufer, D., & Coombs, W. T. (2006). How should a company respond to a product harm crisis? The
role of corporate reputation and consumer-based cues. Business Horizons, 49(5), 379-385.
Li, M., Chapman, S., Agho, K., & Eastman, C. J. (2008). Can even minimal news coverage influence
consumer health-related behaviour? A case study of iodized salt sales, Australia. Health
education research, 23(3), 543-548.
Lynch Jr, J. G. (1982). On the external validity of experiments in consumer research. Journal of
consumer Research, 225-239.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public opinion
quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
Menon, G., Jewel, R. D., & Rao Unnava, H. (1999). When a company does not respond to negative
publicity: cognitive elaboration vs. negative affect perspective. Advances in Consumer
Research, 26, 325-329.
Murray, E., & Shohen, S. (1992). Lessons from the Tylenol tragedy on surviving a corporate
crisis. Medical Marketing and Media, 27(2), 14-19
Nemery, B., Fischler, B., Boogaerts, M., Lison, D., & Willems, J. (2002). The Coca Cola Incident in
Belgium, June 1999. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 40(11), 1657–1667.
Newcom Research & Consultancy. (2011). Newcom Vertrouwensindex 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/70391283/Newcom-Vertrouwensindex-2011
58
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? The Journal of Marketing, 33-44.
Poulsen, S.P., Juhl, H.J., Esbjerg, L., Brunsø, K,. Bech-Larsen, T., & Grunert, K.G. (2005) Measuring
Brand Strength and Its Sources Using Choice Modeling. Unpublished manuscript, Aalborg
University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Reibstein, D. J. (1978). The prediction of individual probabilities of brand choice. Journal of Consumer
Research, 163-168.
Roehm, M. L., & Brady, M. K. (2007). Consumer Responses to Performance Failures by High‐Equity
Brands. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 537-545.
Rosenbaum, M. E., & Levin, I. P. (1969). Impression formation as a function of source credibility and
the polarity of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(1), 34.
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1994). The health belief model and HIV risk
behavior change. In Preventing AIDS (pp. 5-24). Springer US.
Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2006). The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in
the US automobile industry. Organization Science, 17(1), 101-117.
Sago, B., & Hinnenkamp, C. (2014). The Impact of Significant Negative News on Consumer Behavior
towards Favorite Brands. Global Journal of Business Research (GJBR), 8(1).
Sherell, D. L., & Reidenbach, E. R. (1986). A consumer responses framework for negative publicity:
Suggestions for responses strategies. Akron Business and Economic Review, 17(2), 37-44.
Simon, C. J., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity: a
financial approach. Marketing science, 12(1), 28-52.
Siomkos, G., & Shrivastava, P. (1993). Responding to product liability crises. Long Range
Planning, 26(5), 72-79.
Siomkos, G., Triantafillidou, A., Vassilikopoulou, A., & Tsiamis, I. (2010). Opportunities and threats for
competitors in product-harm crises. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28(6), 770-791.
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase
intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.
Stammerjohan, C., Wood, C. M., Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2005). An empirical investigation of the
interaction between publicity, advertising, and previous brand attitudes and
knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 55-67.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., De Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable response tendencies
in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 199-214.
Tolboom, M., Bronner, F., & Smit, E. (2012). The Potential Danger of Negative Free Publicity for the
Consumer-Brand Relationship. Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. III) (pp. 391-402).
Gabler Verlag.
59
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Torquato, R., Franco, C. M., & Bianchi, A. (2012). Seat Belt Use Intention among Brazilian
Undergraduate Students. Revista Colombiana de Psicología,21(2), 253-263.
Van Riel, C. B., & Fombrun, C. J. (2007). Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing
practices for effective reputation management. Routledge.
Vassilikopoulou, A., Siomkos, G., Chatzipanagiotou, K., & Pantouvakis, A. (2009). Product-harm crisis
management: Time heals all wounds? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16(3), 174180.
60
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
7: Appendix
Appendix 1. List of factors (commands), meanings and levels.
FACTOR
Scenario.#
Scenario.name
AGE
FEMALE
EDUCATION
EDU_TEXT
SCENARIO.123.number
SCENARIO.123
DELTA.ATT
ATT.time1
ATT.time2
CC.FC.scenario
BRAND
Scenario_Response
Scenario_Adaption
BUY_INTENT.t1
BUY_INTENT.t2
DELTA.BUY
BUY_INTENT.t1.cent
NPS.t1
NPS.t2
DELTA.NPS
FAM.t1
FAM.t1.cent
ARTC.NEG
ARTC.NEG.CENT
SOURCE.CRED
SOURCE.CRED.CENT
ATT.RESPONSE
ATT.RESPONSE.CENT
RESP.CRED
RESP.POS
Levels
Meaning
1,2,3,4,5,6
Company response strategy
Coca Cola Adaption, Coca Cola Denial, Coca Cola No Response,
First Choice Adaption, First Choice Denial, First Choice No Response
0,1
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
open question
1,2,3
Adaptation, Denial, No Response
Min=-6 / Max=6
Min=1 / Max=7
Min=1 / Max=7
1,2
Coca Cola, First Choice
0,1
0,1
Min=1 / Max=5
Min=1 / Max=5
Min=-4 / Max=4
Min=0 / Max=10
Min=0 / Max=10
Min=-10 / Max=10
Min=1 / Max=5
Min=1 / Max=5
Min=1 / Max=5
Min=1 / Max=?
Min=1 / Max=5
Age in years
0 = Male, 1 = Female
VMBO, HAVO, VWO, MBO, HBO, WO,
other
Other education
Adaptation, Denial, No Response
=ATT.time1-ATT.time2
Initial brand attitude
Post-test brand attitude
Select brand
1 for a company response
1 for adaptation response
Initial likelihood to buy
Post-test likelihood to buy
=BUY_INTENT.t1-BUY_INTENT.t2
Centered values for likelihood to buy
Net promotor score time 1
Net promotor score time 2
=NPS.t1-NPS.t2
Initial brand familiarity
Centered values for familiarity
Article negativity
Centered values for article negativity
Source credibility
Centered values for source credibility
Attitude towards company response
Centered values for comp. response
Response credibility
Response positivity
61
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Appendix 2. Survey
Q1.1 Beste respondent,
Met deze enquête zou ik graag een aantal opvattingen over het gebruik van producten te weten
komen.
Deze enquête is volledig anoniem: uitkomsten ervan zullen niet terug te voeren zijn op individuele
respondenten. Het invullen van deze enquête zal enkele minuten van je tijd in beslag nemen. Ik wil
je bij voorbaat hartelijk danken voor je medewerking.
Eventuele vragen en opmerkingen kunnen aan het einde van deze enquête gemeld worden.
Q2.1
Coca-Cola is een merk cola. Het is een suikerhoudende koolzuurhoudende
frisdrank die wordt verhandeld door The Coca-Cola Company en is bijna overal
ter wereld verkrijgbaar.
In hoeverre ben je bekend met Coca-Cola?
Totaal onbekend
Enigszins onbekend
Neutraal
Enigszins bekend
Totaal bekend
Q2.2 Wat is jouw indruk van Coca-Cola?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Onaantrekkelijk
Slecht
Negatief
Aantrekkelijk
Goed
Positief
Q2.3 Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je Coca-Cola koopt in de komende 10 dagen?
Absoluut niet
Waarschijnlijk niet
Neutraal
Waarschijnlijk wel
Absoluut wel
Q2.4 Op een schaal van 0-10, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je Coca-Cola bij vrienden of familie
aanbeveelt?
Helemaal niet waarschijnlijk
○0
○1
○2
○3
Heel erg waarschijnlijk
○4
○5
○6
○7
○8
○9
○ 10
Q3.1
62
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
First Choice Cola is een Nederlands colamerk dat sinds 1996 op de markt is. Het is
onder meer verkrijgbaar bij supermarkten Coop, Emté, Dekamarkt en Nettorama.
In hoeverre ben je bekend met First Choice Cola?
Totaal onbekend
Enigszins onbekend
Neutraal
Enigszins bekend
Totaal bekend
Q3.2 Wat is jouw indruk van First Choice Cola?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Onaantrekkelijk
Slecht
Negatief
Aantrekkelijk
Goed
Positief
Q3.3 Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je First Choice Cola koopt in de komende 10 dagen?
Absoluut niet
Waarschijnlijk niet
Neutraal
Waarschijnlijk wel
Absoluut wel
Q3.4 Op een schaal van 0-10, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je First Choice Cola bij vrienden of familie
aanbeveelt?
Helemaal niet waarschijnlijk
○0
○1
○2
○3
Heel erg waarschijnlijk
○4
○5
○6
○7
○8
○9
○ 10
63
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Scenario 1
Q4.1 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"Ingrediënt in Coca-Cola is kankerverwekkend"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
Een ingrediënt dat gebruikt wordt in Coca-Cola vormt een kankerrisico en moet verboden worden,
aldus een belangrijke lobbygroep.
"In tegenstelling tot de karamel die je thuis zou maken door suiker te smelten, ontstaat de
kunstmatige kleurstof in cola's en andere producten door suikers te laten reageren met ammoniak
en sulfieten onder hoge druk en hoge temperaturen. Hierdoor ontstaan de twee stoffen 2-MI en 4MI, uit onderzoek van de overheid blijkt dat dit leukemie, long-, lever- of schildklierkanker
veroorzaakt bij laboratoriumratten of -muizen." De bezorgdheid omtrent deze kunstmatige bruine
kleurstof groeit, volgens onderzoekers kan dit honderden kankergevallen veroorzaken.
"De karamelkleurstof gebruikt in Coca-Cola moet verbannen worden", aldus de
gezondheidslobbygroep CSPI. Het 'National Toxicology Program' zegt dat er duidelijk bewijs is dat
zowel 2-MI en 4-MI kanker veroorzaakt bij dieren, daarom is de kans groot dat dit bij mensen ook
het geval is." Onderzoekers aan de universiteit van Wageningen ontdekten een beduidend niveau
van 4-MI in alle varianten Coca-Cola. Directeur van de lobbygroep CSPI vraagt de overheid om actie
te ondernemen: "Kankerverwekkende kleurstoffen horen niet thuis in voeding, zeker niet wanneer
het enkel van esthetisch belang is. De naam karamelkleurstof beschrijft niet duidelijk dat het om een
additief gaat. Het is een geconcentreerde bruine mengeling van chemische stoffen die niet in de
natuur voorkomen."
De CSPI voegt er aan toe dat het verhoogde risico geassocieerd met de consumptie van deze
chemische stoffen extreem klein is. De tien theelepels suiker in een blikje cola vormt een groter
gezondheidsprobleem. Maar het niveau van 4-MI in de geteste cola's veroorzaakt toch jaarlijks
honderden kankergevallen bij de bevolking. Voor zover bekend hebben andere merken cola geen
last van dit gezondheidsrisico vanwege een ander productieproces.
64
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q4.2 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"Coca-Cola past recept aan om kankerwaarschuwing"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
De grootste speler in de frisdrankmarkt, Coca-Cola, gaat zijn recept voor 's werelds meest
populaire drankje aanpassen nu de overheid een ingrediënt op de lijst van kankerverwekkende
stoffen heeft geplaatst. Coca-Cola zegt dat het de smaak van cola niet zal beïnvloeden.
De colagigant ziet zich genoodzaakt tot de aanpassing van hun zo gekoesterde recepten over te gaan
om te voorkomen dat ze een waarschuwingslabel op de verpakkingen van alle drankjes moeten
plaatsen. Zo'n label dat voor kanker waarschuwt zou funest kunnen zijn voor de marketing van de
producten.
Eeuwenoud recept
Het recept van Coca-Cola is ruim 100 jaar oud en was van oorsprong een medicijn in de vorm van
een siroop waaraan in eerste instantie water en later koolzuurhoudend water werd toegevoegd.
Coca-Cola gebruikt de stof '4-methylimidazole' (afgekort 4-MEI), om een caramelkleur aan de cola te
geven. Maar die chemicalie is nu toegevoegd aan de lijst van kankerverwekkende stoffen, wat
inhoudt dat fabrikanten de aanwezigheid van die stof moeten melden, gepaard met een
waarschuwing dat het kanker kan veroorzaken. Om hogere kosten te voorkomen, gaat het merk het
recept wereldwijd aanpassen.
Schadelijk
Een studie heeft aangetoond dat de stof 4-MEI een verhoogd risico tot kanker met zich meebrengt in
ratten en muizen, maar er is volgens de Dranken Vereniging geen bewijs dat het ook schadelijk is
voor mensen. Volgens de organisatie zou je elke dag een paar duizend blikjes cola moeten drinken
gedurende 70 jaar om dezelfde dosis binnen te krijgen die de proefdieren in het laboratorium was
toegediend.
65
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q4.3 Wat is jouw indruk van Coca-Cola?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Onaantrekkelijk
Slecht
Negatief
Aantrekkelijk
Goed
Positief
Q4.4 Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je Coca-Cola koopt in de komende 10 dagen?
Absoluut niet
Waarschijnlijk niet
Neutraal
Waarschijnlijk wel
Absoluut wel
Q4.5 Op een schaal van 0-10, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je Coca-Cola bij vrienden of familie
aanbeveelt?
Helemaal niet waarschijnlijk
○0
○1
○2
○3
Heel erg waarschijnlijk
○4
○5
○6
○7
○8
○9
○ 10
Q4.6 Wat vind je van het nieuws over Coca-Cola?
Erg positief
Positief
Neutraal
Negatief
Erg Negatief
Q4.7 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaa
l mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind het nieuwsitem over Coca-Cola
geloofwaardig





Ik vind Coca-Cola schuldig aan het probleem





Ik vind de reactie van Coca-Cola positief





Ik vind de reactie van Coca-Cola geloofwaardig





Ik vind de reactie van Coca-Cola sterk





Het nieuws over Coca-Cola heeft invloed op mijn
gedrag





Q4.8 Hoe vaak lees of kijk je het nieuws? (online & offline)
Meerdere keren Ongeveer één Enkele keren
Enkele keren
per dag
keer per dag
per week
Eéns per week per maand
Nauwelijks
66
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q4.9 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaa
l mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind nieuwsartikelen geloofwaardig





Ik laat me beïnvloeden door het nieuws





Ik ben kritisch op communicatie van bedrijven





Scenario 2
Q5.1 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"Ingrediënt in Coca-Cola is kankerverwekkend"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
Een ingrediënt dat gebruikt wordt in Coca-Cola vormt een kankerrisico en moet verboden worden,
aldus een belangrijke lobbygroep.
"In tegenstelling tot de karamel die je thuis zou maken door suiker te smelten, ontstaat de
kunstmatige kleurstof in cola's en andere producten door suikers te laten reageren met ammoniak
en sulfieten onder hoge druk en hoge temperaturen. Hierdoor ontstaan de twee stoffen 2-MI en 4MI, uit onderzoek van de overheid blijkt dat dit leukemie, long-, lever- of schildklierkanker
veroorzaakt bij laboratoriumratten of -muizen." De bezorgdheid omtrent deze kunstmatige bruine
kleurstof groeit, volgens onderzoekers kan dit honderden kankergevallen veroorzaken.
"De karamelkleurstof gebruikt in Coca-Cola moet verbannen worden", aldus de
gezondheidslobbygroep CSPI. Het 'National Toxicology Program' zegt dat er duidelijk bewijs is dat
zowel 2-MI en 4-MI kanker veroorzaakt bij dieren, daarom is de kans groot dat dit bij mensen ook
het geval is." Onderzoekers aan de universiteit van Wageningen ontdekten een beduidend niveau
van 4-MI in alle varianten Coca-Cola. Directeur van de lobbygroep CSPI vraagt de overheid om actie
te ondernemen: "Kankerverwekkende kleurstoffen horen niet thuis in voeding, zeker niet wanneer
67
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
het enkel van esthetisch belang is. De naam karamelkleurstof beschrijft niet duidelijk dat het om een
additief gaat. Het is een geconcentreerde bruine mengeling van chemische stoffen die niet in de
natuur voorkomen."
De CSPI voegt er aan toe dat het verhoogde risico geassocieerd met de consumptie van deze
chemische stoffen extreem klein is. De tien theelepels suiker in een blikje cola vormt een groter
gezondheidsprobleem. Maar het niveau van 4-MI in de geteste cola's veroorzaakt toch jaarlijks
honderden kankergevallen bij de bevolking. Voor zover bekend hebben andere merken cola geen
last van dit gezondheidsrisico vanwege een ander productieproces.
Q5.2 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"Coca-Cola negeert kankerwaarschuwing"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
Frisdrankproducent Coca-Cola negeert de oproep om het gebruik van 4-MEI in haar producten te
stoppen. Volgens het bedrijf is de stof onschadelijk in de hoeveelheden die consumenten normaal
binnen krijgen.
Een lobbygroep had om een verbod gevraagd, na resultaten van een onderzoek dat een verhoogd
risico op kanker bij ratten en muizen had aangetoond. Er is volgens de Dranken Vereniging geen
bewijs dat het ook schadelijk is voor mensen. Volgens de organisatie zou je elke dag een paar
duizend blikjes cola moeten drinken gedurende 70 jaar om dezelfde dosis binnen te krijgen die de
proefdieren in het laboratorium was toegediend. De colafabrikant ziet zich dan ook niet
genoodzaakt tot de aanpassing van hun zo gekoesterde recept. Een aanpassing aan het recept zou
kunnen betekenen dat de smaak verandert.
Eeuwenoud recept
Het recept van Coca-Cola is ruim 100 jaar oud en was van oorsprong een medicijn in de vorm van
een siroop waaraan in eerste instantie water en later koolzuurhoudend water werd toegevoegd.
68
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Coca-Cola gebruikt de stof '4-methylimidazole' (afgekort 4-MEI), om een caramelkleur aan de cola te
geven. Maar een lobbygroep wil die chemicalie nu toevoegen aan de lijst van kankerverwekkende
stoffen, wat inhoudt dat fabrikanten de aanwezigheid van die stof moeten melden, gepaard met een
waarschuwing dat het kanker kan veroorzaken.
Q5.3 Wat is jouw indruk van Coca-Cola?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Onaantrekkelijk
Slecht
Negatief
Aantrekkelijk
Goed
Positief
Q5.4 Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je Coca-Cola koopt in de komende 10 dagen?
Absoluut niet
Waarschijnlijk niet
Neutraal
Waarschijnlijk wel
Absoluut wel
Q5.5 Op een schaal van 0-10, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je Coca-Cola bij vrienden of familie
aanbeveelt?
Helemaal niet waarschijnlijk
○0
○1
○2
○3
Heel erg waarschijnlijk
○4
○5
○6
○7
○8
○9
○ 10
Q5.6 Wat vind je van het nieuws over Coca-Cola?
Erg positief
Positief
Neutraal
Negatief
Erg Negatief
Q5.7 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaa
l mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind het nieuwsitem over Coca-Cola
geloofwaardig





Ik vind Coca-Cola schuldig aan het probleem





Ik vind de reactie van Coca-Cola positief





Ik vind de reactie van Coca-Cola geloofwaardig





Ik vind de reactie van Coca-Cola sterk





Het nieuws over Coca-Cola heeft invloed op mijn
gedrag





69
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q5.8 Hoe vaak lees of kijk je het nieuws? (online & offline)
Meerdere keren Ongeveer één Enkele keren
Enkele keren
per dag
keer per dag
per week
Eéns per week per maand
Nauwelijks
Q5.9 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaa
l mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind nieuwsartikelen geloofwaardig





Ik laat me beïnvloeden door het nieuws





Ik ben kritisch op communicatie van bedrijven





Scenario 3
Q8.1 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"Ingrediënt in Coca-Cola is kankerverwekkend"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
Een ingrediënt dat gebruikt wordt in Coca-Cola vormt een kankerrisico en moet verboden worden,
aldus een belangrijke lobbygroep.
"In tegenstelling tot de karamel die je thuis zou maken door suiker te smelten, ontstaat de
kunstmatige kleurstof in cola's en andere producten door suikers te laten reageren met ammoniak
en sulfieten onder hoge druk en hoge temperaturen. Hierdoor ontstaan de twee stoffen 2-MI en 4MI, uit onderzoek van de overheid blijkt dat dit leukemie, long-, lever- of schildklierkanker
veroorzaakt bij laboratoriumratten of -muizen." De bezorgdheid omtrent deze kunstmatige bruine
kleurstof groeit, volgens onderzoekers kan dit honderden kankergevallen veroorzaken.
"De karamelkleurstof gebruikt in Coca-Cola moet verbannen worden", aldus de
gezondheidslobbygroep CSPI. Het 'National Toxicology Program' zegt dat er duidelijk bewijs is dat
70
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
zowel 2-MI en 4-MI kanker veroorzaakt bij dieren, daarom is de kans groot dat dit bij mensen ook
het geval is." Onderzoekers aan de universiteit van Wageningen ontdekten een beduidend niveau
van 4-MI in alle varianten Coca-Cola. Directeur van de lobbygroep CSPI vraagt de overheid om actie
te ondernemen: "Kankerverwekkende kleurstoffen horen niet thuis in voeding, zeker niet wanneer
het enkel van esthetisch belang is. De naam karamelkleurstof beschrijft niet duidelijk dat het om een
additief gaat. Het is een geconcentreerde bruine mengeling van chemische stoffen die niet in de
natuur voorkomen."
De CSPI voegt er aan toe dat het verhoogde risico geassocieerd met de consumptie van deze
chemische stoffen extreem klein is. De tien theelepels suiker in een blikje cola vormt een groter
gezondheidsprobleem. Maar het niveau van 4-MI in de geteste cola's veroorzaakt toch jaarlijks
honderden kankergevallen bij de bevolking. Voor zover bekend hebben andere merken cola geen
last van dit gezondheidsrisico vanwege een ander productieproces.
Coca-Cola wilde geen mededelingen doen over de beschuldigingen.
Q8.2 Wat is jouw indruk van Coca-Cola?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Onaantrekkelijk
Slecht
Negatief
Aantrekkelijk
Goed
Positief
Q8.3 Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je Coca-Cola koopt in de komende 10 dagen?
Absoluut niet
Waarschijnlijk niet
Neutraal
Waarschijnlijk wel
Absoluut wel
Q8.4 Op een schaal van 0-10, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je Coca-Cola bij vrienden of familie
aanbeveelt?
Helemaal niet waarschijnlijk
○0
○1
○2
○3
Heel erg waarschijnlijk
○4
○5
○6
○7
○8
○9
○ 10
Q8.5 Wat vind je van het nieuws over Coca-Cola?
Erg positief
Positief
Neutraal
Negatief
Erg Negatief
71
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q8.6 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaal
mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind het nieuwsitem geloofwaardig





Ik vind Coca-Cola schuldig aan het probleem





Het nieuws over Coca-Cola heeft invloed op
mijn gedrag





Q8.7 Hoe vaak lees of kijk je het nieuws? (online & offline)
Meerdere keren Ongeveer één Enkele keren
Enkele keren
per dag
keer per dag
per week
Eéns per week per maand
Nauwelijks
Q8.8 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaa
l mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind nieuwsartikelen geloofwaardig





Ik laat me beïnvloeden door het nieuws





Ik ben kritisch op communicatie van bedrijven





Scenario 4
Q6.1 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"Ingrediënt in First Choice Cola is kankerverwekkend"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
Een ingrediënt dat gebruikt wordt in First Choice Cola vormt een kankerrisico en moet verboden
worden, aldus een belangrijke lobbygroep.
72
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
"In tegenstelling tot de karamel die je thuis zou maken door suiker te smelten, ontstaat de
kunstmatige kleurstof in cola's en andere producten door suikers te laten reageren met ammoniak
en sulfieten onder hoge druk en hoge temperaturen. Hierdoor ontstaan de twee stoffen 2-MI en 4MI, uit onderzoek van de overheid blijkt dat dit leukemie, long-, lever- of schildklierkanker
veroorzaakt bij laboratoriumratten of -muizen."
De bezorgdheid omtrent deze kunstmatige bruine kleurstof groeit, volgens onderzoekers kan dit
honderden kankergevallen veroorzaken. "De karamelkleurstof gebruikt in First Choice Cola moet
verbannen worden", aldus de gezondheidslobbygroep CSPI.
Het 'National Toxicology Program' zegt dat er duidelijk bewijs is dat zowel 2-MI en 4-MI kanker
veroorzaakt bij dieren, daarom is de kans groot dat dit bij mensen ook het geval is." Onderzoekers
aan de universiteit van Wageningen ontdekten een beduidend niveau van 4-MI in alle varianten First
Choice Cola. Directeur van de lobbygroep CSPI vraagt de overheid om actie te ondernemen:
"Kankerverwekkende kleurstoffen horen niet thuis in voeding, zeker niet wanneer het enkel van
esthetisch belang is. De naam karamelkleurstof beschrijft niet duidelijk dat het om een additief gaat.
Het is een geconcentreerde bruine mengeling van chemische stoffen die niet in de natuur
voorkomen."
De CSPI voegt er aan toe dat het verhoogde risico geassocieerd met de consumptie van deze
chemische stoffen extreem klein is. De tien theelepels suiker in een blikje cola vormt een groter
gezondheidsprobleem. Maar het niveau van 4-MI in de geteste cola's veroorzaakt toch jaarlijks
honderden kankergevallen bij de bevolking.
Voor zover bekend hebben andere merken cola geen last van dit gezondheidsrisico vanwege een
ander productieproces.
Q6.2 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"First Choice Cola past recept aan om kankerwaarschuwing"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
73
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Een grote speler in de frisdrankmarkt, First Choice Cola, gaat zijn recept voor 's werelds meest
populaire drankje aanpassen nu de overheid een ingrediënt op de lijst van kankerverwekkende
stoffen heeft geplaatst. First Choice Cola zegt dat het de smaak van cola niet zal beïnvloeden.
De colagigant ziet zich genoodzaakt tot de aanpassing van hun zo gekoesterde recepten over te gaan
om te voorkomen dat ze een waarschuwingslabel op de verpakkingen van alle drankjes moeten
plaatsen. Zo'n label dat voor kanker waarschuwt zou funest kunnen zijn voor de marketing van de
producten.
Eeuwenoud recept
Het recept van First Choice Cola is ruim 100 jaar oud en was van oorsprong een medicijn in de vorm
van een siroop waaraan in eerste instantie water en later koolzuurhoudend water werd toegevoegd.
First Choice Cola gebruikt de stof '4-methylimidazole' (afgekort 4-MEI), om een caramelkleur aan de
cola te geven. Maar die chemicalie is nu toegevoegd aan de lijst van kankerverwekkende stoffen,
wat inhoudt dat fabrikanten de aanwezigheid van die stof moeten melden, gepaard met een
waarschuwing dat het kanker kan veroorzaken. Om hogere kosten te voorkomen, gaat het merk het
recept aanpassen.
Schadelijk
Een studie heeft aangetoond dat de stof 4-MEI een verhoogd risico tot kanker met zich meebrengt in
ratten en muizen, maar er is volgens de Dranken Vereniging geen bewijs dat het ook schadelijk is
voor mensen. Volgens de organisatie zou je elke dag een paar duizend blikjes cola moeten drinken
gedurende 70 jaar om dezelfde dosis binnen te krijgen die de proefdieren in het laboratorium was
toegediend.
Q6.3 Wat is jouw indruk van First Choice Cola?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Onaantrekkelijk
Slecht
Negatief
Aantrekkelijk
Goed
Positief
Q6.4 Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je First Choice Cola koopt in de komende 10 dagen?
Absoluut niet
Waarschijnlijk niet
Neutraal
Waarschijnlijk wel
Absoluut wel
Q6.5 Op een schaal van 0-10, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je First Choice Cola bij vrienden of familie
aanbeveelt?
Helemaal niet waarschijnlijk
○0
○1
○2
○3
Heel erg waarschijnlijk
○4
○5
○6
○7
○8
○9
○ 10
74
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q6.6 Wat vind je van het nieuws over First Choice Cola?
Erg positief
Positief
Neutraal
Negatief
Erg Negatief
Q6.7 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaal
mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind het nieuwsitem over First Choice Cola
geloofwaardig





Ik vind First Choice Cola schuldig aan het
probleem





Ik vind de reactie van First Choice Cola positief





Ik vind de reactie van First Choice Cola
geloofwaardig





Ik vind de reactie van First Choice Cola sterk





Het nieuws over First Choice Cola heeft
invloed op mijn gedrag





Q6.8 Hoe vaak lees of kijk je het nieuws? (online & offline)
Meerdere keren Ongeveer één Enkele keren
Enkele keren
per dag
keer per dag
per week
Eéns per week per maand
Nauwelijks
Q6.9 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaa
l mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind nieuwsartikelen geloofwaardig





Ik laat me beïnvloeden door het nieuws





Ik ben kritisch op communicatie van bedrijven





Scenario 5
Q7.1 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"Ingrediënt in First Choice Cola is kankerverwekkend"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
75
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
© Reuters.
Een ingrediënt dat gebruikt wordt in First Choice Cola vormt een kankerrisico en moet verboden
worden, aldus een belangrijke lobbygroep.
"In tegenstelling tot de karamel die je thuis zou maken door suiker te smelten, ontstaat de
kunstmatige kleurstof in cola's en andere producten door suikers te laten reageren met ammoniak
en sulfieten onder hoge druk en hoge temperaturen. Hierdoor ontstaan de twee stoffen 2-MI en 4MI, uit onderzoek van de overheid blijkt dat dit leukemie, long-, lever- of schildklierkanker
veroorzaakt bij laboratoriumratten of -muizen."
De bezorgdheid omtrent deze kunstmatige bruine kleurstof groeit, volgens onderzoekers kan dit
honderden kankergevallen veroorzaken. "De karamelkleurstof gebruikt in First Choice Cola moet
verbannen worden", aldus de gezondheidslobbygroep CSPI.
Het 'National Toxicology Program' zegt dat er duidelijk bewijs is dat zowel 2-MI en 4-MI kanker
veroorzaakt bij dieren, daarom is de kans groot dat dit bij mensen ook het geval is." Onderzoekers
aan de universiteit van Wageningen ontdekten een beduidend niveau van 4-MI in alle varianten First
Choice Cola. Directeur van de lobbygroep CSPI vraagt de overheid om actie te ondernemen:
"Kankerverwekkende kleurstoffen horen niet thuis in voeding, zeker niet wanneer het enkel van
esthetisch belang is. De naam karamelkleurstof beschrijft niet duidelijk dat het om een additief gaat.
Het is een geconcentreerde bruine mengeling van chemische stoffen die niet in de natuur
voorkomen."
De CSPI voegt er aan toe dat het verhoogde risico geassocieerd met de consumptie van deze
chemische stoffen extreem klein is. De tien theelepels suiker in een blikje cola vormt een groter
gezondheidsprobleem. Maar het niveau van 4-MI in de geteste cola's veroorzaakt toch jaarlijks
honderden kankergevallen bij de bevolking.
Voor zover bekend hebben andere merken cola geen last van dit gezondheidsrisico vanwege een
ander productieproces.
76
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q7.2 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"First Choice Cola negeert kankerwaarschuwing"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
Frisdrankproducent First Choice Cola negeert de oproep om het gebruik van 4-MEI in haar
producten te stoppen. Volgens het bedrijf is de stof onschadelijk in de hoeveelheden die
consumenten normaal binnen krijgen.
Een lobbygroep had om een verbod gevraagd, na resultaten van een onderzoek dat een verhoogd
risico op kanker bij ratten en muizen had aangetoond. Er is volgens de Dranken Vereniging geen
bewijs dat het ook schadelijk is voor mensen. Volgens de organisatie zou je elke dag een paar
duizend blikjes cola moeten drinken gedurende 70 jaar om dezelfde dosis binnen te krijgen die de
proefdieren in het laboratorium was toegediend.
De colafabrikant ziet zich dan ook niet genoodzaakt tot de aanpassing van hun zo gekoesterde
recept. Een aanpassing aan het recept zou kunnen betekenen dat de smaak verandert.
Eeuwenoud recept
Het recept van First Choice Cola is ruim 100 jaar oud en was van oorsprong een medicijn in de vorm
van een siroop waaraan in eerste instantie water en later koolzuurhoudend water werd toegevoegd.
First Choice Cola gebruikt de stof '4-methylimidazole' (afgekort 4-MEI), om een caramelkleur aan de
cola te geven. Maar een lobbygroep wil die chemicalie nu toevoegen aan de lijst van
kankerverwekkende stoffen, wat inhoudt dat fabrikanten de aanwezigheid van die stof moeten
melden, gepaard met een waarschuwing dat het kanker kan veroorzaken.
Q7.3 Wat is jouw indruk van First Choice Cola?
Onaantrekkelijk
Slecht
Negatief
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Aantrekkelijk
Goed
Positief
77
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q7.4 Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je First Choice Cola koopt in de komende 10 dagen?
Absoluut niet
Waarschijnlijk niet
Neutraal
Waarschijnlijk wel
Absoluut wel
Q7.5 Op een schaal van 0-10, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je First Choice Cola bij vrienden of familie
aanbeveelt?
Helemaal niet waarschijnlijk
○0
○1
○2
○3
Heel erg waarschijnlijk
○4
○5
○6
○7
○8
○9
○ 10
Q7.6 Wat vind je van het nieuws over First Choice Cola?
Erg positief
Positief
Neutraal
Negatief
Erg Negatief
Q7.7 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaal
mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind het nieuwsitem over First Choice Cola
geloofwaardig





Ik vind First Choice Cola schuldig aan het
probleem





Ik vind de reactie van First Choice Cola positief





Ik vind de reactie van First Choice Cola
geloofwaardig





Ik vind de reactie van First Choice Cola sterk





Het nieuws over First Choice Cola heeft
invloed op mijn gedrag





Q7.8 Hoe vaak lees of kijk je het nieuws? (online & offline)
Meerdere keren Ongeveer één Enkele keren
Enkele keren
per dag
keer per dag
per week
Eéns per week per maand
Nauwelijks
78
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q7.9 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaa
l mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind nieuwsartikelen geloofwaardig





Ik laat me beïnvloeden door het nieuws





Ik ben kritisch op communicatie van bedrijven





Scenario 6
Q9.1 Lees het onderstaande nieuwsartikel en ga door op de volgende pagina.
"Ingrediënt in First Choice Cola is kankerverwekkend"
Bron: NRC Handelsblad
© Reuters.
Een ingrediënt dat gebruikt wordt in First Choice Cola vormt een kankerrisico en moet verboden
worden, aldus een belangrijke lobbygroep.
"In tegenstelling tot de karamel die je thuis zou maken door suiker te smelten, ontstaat de
kunstmatige kleurstof in cola's en andere producten door suikers te laten reageren met ammoniak
en sulfieten onder hoge druk en hoge temperaturen. Hierdoor ontstaan de twee stoffen 2-MI en 4MI, uit onderzoek van de overheid blijkt dat dit leukemie, long-, lever- of schildklierkanker
veroorzaakt bij laboratoriumratten of -muizen."
De bezorgdheid omtrent deze kunstmatige bruine kleurstof groeit, volgens onderzoekers kan dit
honderden kankergevallen veroorzaken. "De karamelkleurstof gebruikt in First Choice Cola moet
verbannen worden", aldus de gezondheidslobbygroep CSPI.
Het 'National Toxicology Program' zegt dat er duidelijk bewijs is dat zowel 2-MI en 4-MI kanker
veroorzaakt bij dieren, daarom is de kans groot dat dit bij mensen ook het geval is." Onderzoekers
aan de universiteit van Wageningen ontdekten een beduidend niveau van 4-MI in alle varianten First
79
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Choice Cola. Directeur van de lobbygroep CSPI vraagt de overheid om actie te ondernemen:
"Kankerverwekkende kleurstoffen horen niet thuis in voeding, zeker niet wanneer het enkel van
esthetisch belang is. De naam karamelkleurstof beschrijft niet duidelijk dat het om een additief gaat.
Het is een geconcentreerde bruine mengeling van chemische stoffen die niet in de natuur
voorkomen."
De CSPI voegt er aan toe dat het verhoogde risico geassocieerd met de consumptie van deze
chemische stoffen extreem klein is. De tien theelepels suiker in een blikje cola vormt een groter
gezondheidsprobleem. Maar het niveau van 4-MI in de geteste cola's veroorzaakt toch jaarlijks
honderden kankergevallen bij de bevolking.
Voor zover bekend hebben andere merken cola geen last van dit gezondheidsrisico vanwege een
ander productieproces.
First Choice Cola wilde geen mededelingen doen over de beschuldigingen.
Q9.2 Wat is jouw indruk van First Choice Cola?
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Onaantrekkelijk
Slecht
Negatief
Aantrekkelijk
Goed
Positief
Q9.3 Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je First Choice Cola koopt in de komende 10 dagen?
Absoluut niet
Waarschijnlijk niet
Neutraal
Waarschijnlijk wel
Absoluut wel
Q9.4 Op een schaal van 0-10, hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je First Choice Cola bij vrienden of familie
aanbeveelt?
Helemaal niet waarschijnlijk
○0
○1
○2
○3
Heel erg waarschijnlijk
○4
○5
○6
○7
○8
○9
○ 10
Q9.5 Wat vind je van het nieuws over First Choice Cola?
Erg positief
Positief
Neutraal
Negatief
Erg Negatief
80
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q9.6 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaal
mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind het nieuwsitem over First Choice Cola
geloofwaardig





Ik vind First Choice Cola schuldig aan het
probleem





Het nieuws over First Choice Cola heeft
invloed op mijn gedrag





Q9.7 Hoe vaak lees of kijk je het nieuws? (online & offline)
Meerdere keren Ongeveer één Enkele keren
Enkele keren
per dag
keer per dag
per week
Eéns per week per maand
Nauwelijks
Q9.8 Beoordeel onderstaande stellingen
Helemaa
l mee
oneens
Mee
oneens
Niet eens /
niet oneens
Mee
eens
Helemaal
mee eens
Ik vind nieuwsartikelen geloofwaardig





Ik laat me beïnvloeden door het nieuws





Ik ben kritisch op communicatie van bedrijven





Algemene vragen
Q10.1 Wat is je leeftijd?
Q10.2 Wat is je geslacht?
 Man
 Vrouw
Q10.3 Welke opleiding volg je, of wat is je hoogst genoten opleiding?
 VMBO
 HAVO
 VWO
 MBO
 HBO
 WO
 Anders, namelijk ____________________
81
How to handle negative publicity: An evaluation of response strategies. – Sten Boerkamp – 2014
Q10.4 Dank voor je deelname. Ter info: De nieuwsberichten in dit onderzoek zijn gemanipuleerd
voor onderzoeksdoeleinden. Dit onderzoek is niet uitgevoerd in opdracht van een fabrikant maar is
volledig onafhankelijk.
Q10.5 Mocht je geïnteresseerd zijn in de uitkomsten van het onderzoek, vermeld dan hieronder
vrijblijvend je e-mailadres.
Q10.6 Eventuele opmerkingen
82