The Analysis of Crisis Communication Strategies Essay

By description crisis is known as a situation which includes reached a crucial phase (Crisis definition). Turmoil is characterized by its deficiency of stability, unpredictability and brief decision-making period. According to Fearn-Banks (1996) crisis is “a key occurrence with a potentially adverse outcome influencing an organization, business, or sector, as well as their publics, goods, or good name”. The negative outcomes of a crisis are not limited; crisis can be, but not necessarily, a very serious risk to organization’s functioning and stability. Some scholars believe an organization can benefit from a crisis scenario if this sort of is handled properly (Ulmer, & Sellnow, 2000).

Communication scholars have been completely conducting multiple researches, seeking to formulate a lot of generalized and applicable theories of turmoil communication and crisis management. Since catastrophe is a crucial period in lifetime of an organization that can influence its future, understanding crises and knowing how to manage these hard situations effectively are essential abilities that corporate and business managers ought to posses. This kind of paper can explore the crisis of Redux Beverages which was due to controversy surrounding the launch of the new product.

On Sept. 2010 25, 06\, a new Las Vegas based brewing company – Redux Refreshments launched a new energy beverage called Cocaine. Since the 1st days available the beverage has become very controversial. The population didn’t have a problem with the content from the new drink, which is nearly the same as Red Bull or Huge. It was its’ name that folks didn’t truly feel quite proper about.

Redux Beverages’ CEO and developer of Cocaine, Jamey Kirby thought that identifying an energy drink after a risky narcotic was “a fun name”, people, however , would not agree (“Cocaine drink claims” 2006). The negative advertising that Redux Beverages received as a result of the launch of new product generated the eruption of a reputational crisis. The public accused Redux Beverages of promoting and glamorizing drug usage among teens and young adults, who are the major target and consumer of one’s drinks. Pretty much a month following the introduction of Cocaine a convenient retail store giant 7-Eleven decided to move Cocaine through the shelves (Mooney, 2006).

The controversy related to Cocaine strength drink ongoing throughout the fall season and winter. People started out questioning not merely the name of the drink, but as well the marketing strategy used by Redux to promote their particular product. Upon April 5, 2007 the meals and Drug Administration released a warning letter notifying the firm that their merchandise was promoted illegally as an option to an dubious drug and a dietary supplement.

The notice from FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION claimed that “street medicine alternatives, we. e., products that claims to mimic the effects of recreational drugs, are not designed to supplement this diet and, therefore, cannot legitimately be sold as diet supplements” (Douaud, 2007). In addition Redux Drinks was offender of having identified some of the drink’s ingredients inaccurately as health supplements that could reduced blood cholesterol, protect neural fibers, or help individuals with anxiousness, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders. The FDA threatened the fact that failure to reply to these violations would bring about legal activities (Other, 2008). On May a few, 2007 Redux Beverages declared that the company made a decision to temporarily cease the division of Crack.

In the same announcement the beverage’s creators notified consumers that the beverage will be nonetheless available for purchase under a different term – Censored. Redux Refreshments crisis isn’t an example of a severe, remarkable case. Contrary to some crises, Cocaine turmoil wasn’t unexpected.

The makers chose a scandalous brand because they knew it might be controversial and since Jamey Kirby said “controversy sells” (Nizza, 2007). The controversy was expected and somewhat ideal. Redux Drinks knew that breaking into the energy drink industry was a extremely challenging process and that they were required to come up with a marketing strategy that would get them new customers.

It was quite obvious that naming a power drink after an A-class narcotic will result in adverse opinions and outrage, what was not expected was the level of that invective. Redux Beverages could not possess predicted the fact that product will probably be eventually ripped from the shelves and that the controversy surrounding the product would trigger a struggle with the Food and Drug Operations. This situation could possibly be explained with chaotic systems theory – the uncertainty of how persons will react to the launch of a questionable product triggered inaccurate prediction of long lasting outcomes (Sellnow, & Seeger, 2001). Because of the controversy encircling the launch of Cocaine energy beverage Redux Beverages’ public photo has suffered.

The firm was accused of promoting and glamorizing drug use between teenagers and young adults. The marketing strategies accustomed to promote the drink had been perceived in a negative way and were widely belittled. In response to such accusations Redux Beverages used some of the theorized simply by Benoit known as Image Recovery Theory. In accordance to Benoit (1997) graphic repair approaches can be applied if an person or a company is perceived as responsible for a great offensive take action. Moreover Benoit (1997) statements that it is not really important whether or not the act was truly unpleasant; important is exactly what people’s awareness are and if the public is convinced that an business committed a heinous action then the reputation and stability are at risk.

In case there is Redux Refreshments one could believe the work was not extremely offensive and people’s response might have been exaggerated, still the proportion of adverse responses in the audience is that high that Redux needed to react and address the arisen issues. At first Redux Beverages’ staff appeared to be quite difficult to reach. Several news reporters covering the account stated that they can had been unable to reach anyone that could stand for the firm and produce some responses regarding Crack controversy. Throughout the duration of the crisis Jamey Kirby, the CEO and inventor of Cocaine was the most active spokesperson for the firm. Kirby rejected the accusations of advertising and promoting drug value to young people.

Kirby focused largely on reduction of offensiveness of the committed act; this individual used image restoration approaches such as: bolstering, minimization, differentiation, transcendence and attack attaquer (Benoit, & Czerwinski, 1997). In the starting interviews Jamey Kirby responded to some of the inquiries regarding the controversy surrounding his product Crack. In initiatives to defend the drink Kirby highlighted a few positive aspects of Cocaine (bolstering) – in an interview for CNBC Avenue Signs Kirby said that Crack is the energy drink that has “by much the best quality”; according to Kirby Crack doesn’t provide the consumer a “crash through the sugar as well as the jitters through the caffeine” (Burnett, 2007).

But even with that having been explained the public remained outraged and kept accusing the drink makers of endorsing illegal medicines, especially to teenagers and young adults. The population was concerned that the marketing of the questionable drink was mainly centered on media channels such as Facebook or myspace and Vimeo that are noted from becoming widely used by young, impressionable people. Kirby uses minimization claiming that “people know the difference; We don’t believe people can look at the drink and say, ‘Oh, I’m gonna buy some real cocaine'”(William Pres, 2008). This was not really the best response.

Teenagers are a very impressionable group and ignoring the risk of selling an item that could potentially cause some to succeed in for an illegal element is quite irresponsible. Some outraged persons raised noises that not just is Crack advocating drug use, nevertheless also placing at risk the healthiness of its customers due to a very high content of caffeine. Based on the product’s ingredients label an almost 8. 4 oz can is made up of 280 milligrams of caffeine, 750 milligrams of taurine, guarana, B vitamins and sugar (Redux Beverages, LLC).

All these materials are supposed to supply the drinker the power high. Many people were concerned whether this kind of high dosages of caffeine will not harm young consumers. In response to these concerns Kirby used differentiation and compared the content of the can of Cocaine to other energy boosting drinks such as Starbucks coffee.

Inside the interview pertaining to CNN Reports Room Kirby says “if you look in the other refreshments on the market a Starbucks 20 oz . Grande Coffee offers 500 mg of caffeine we are merely slightly above half that, so we don’t have any pathological levels of caffeine in our drink”(Nguyen, 2007). Kirby’s comment might appear to be a little bit irrelevant, particularly if to look at the very fact that this individual compared 500 milligrams of caffeine within a 20 oz . size glass. If to pour Cocaine drink to a 20 oz . cup one would drink an equivalent of almost 670 milligrams of caffeine, almost 1786 milligrams of taurine and even more energy boosting materials.

As a result of the controversy and negative open public response to the new energy beverage the Food and Drug Administration decided to part of and take a closer check out Cocaine drink and its advertising. In 04 of 3 years ago the FDA issued a warning letter by which Redux Refreshments was offender of marketing Crack drink illegally as a great “alternative to a illicit road drug” (Other, 2008). Furthermore, the Food and Drug Government disliked the truth that Cocaine was advertised as a health supplement “intended in order to avoid, treat, or cure disease conditions” (Cruse, 2007).

Based on the product’s labeled one of the ingredients, more specifically inositol “reduces hypercholesteria in the blood; helps protecting against hardening from the arteries, and may even protect neurological fibers from excess blood sugar damage”(Cruse, 2007). Redux Beverages was given 15 days to correct the violations, or else the company may have faced legal responsibility (Other, 2008). In response to the occurrence Jamey Kirby said: “We happen to be correcting the violations the fact that FDA thinks we have”. As a result Redux Beverages initially made some changes to the marketing strategy and removed slogans such as: “liquid cocaine” and “speed within a can”.

The webpage was also fixed and instead of calling the drink a dietary supplement Cocaine had become an energy supplement (Other, 2008). At first of May possibly 2007 the official webpage of Cocaine strength drink declared that the beverage’s distribution had been temporarily halted. Following the decision Clegg Ivey, one of Redux Beverages companions revealed that the business was intending to keep providing the beverage under a diverse name which will would be introduced soon.

Furthermore Ivey produced a quite ridiculous brief review advocating the product: “Of training course, we meant for Cocaine energy drink to become legal substitute the same way that celibacy can be an alternative to premarital sex”. Ivey also says Redux made a decision to cease the distribution from the product as the FDA acquired threaded with punishment by imprisonment (Serrano, 2007). Couple of days later Redux resumed the sale of Crack under a fresh name – Censored.

The required website of Cocaine drink featured multiple slogans and notifications marking the end of Cocaine. The modern slogan for Censored energy drink was “Censored by the Man” which clearly known FDA’s decision to suspend Cocaine identity. On July 17th of 2007 Redux Beverages made a decision to change the term of the previous Cocaine once again. The new identity would really be nameless. Redux Beverage’s new marketing strategy was going to sell the drink in a can that looked like a reddish colored former Crack can; the difference was that the logo was absent.

The beverage makers decided to design a can which would have a blank field in which buyers could publish whatever brand they wanted. Since then the controversy encircling Cocaine strength drink got started to perish down. That was till early 08 when the energy drink was re-released beneath its unique name. Redux Beverages experienced addressed and corrected the violations pointed out by the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) and resumed sales of Cocaine.

The marketing strategy was modified. Cocaine was available in three types: original (with the throat-numbing effect), cut (mild version) and free (sugar-free). Following the re-release the foodstuff and Medication Administration granted another warning letter. On September 9, 08 Redux Beverages received one other warning when the FDA stated concerns concerning fonts employed by Redux within the drink containers. Cocaine was distributed in red, eight.

4 oz . cans with a logo spelled out in a white, powdery font. The letters resembled letter-shaped lines of drug cocaine. In addition , the FDA experienced objection for the use of term “cut” about an additional emblem tagging a milder edition of the beverage. Jamey Kirby responded to these types of accusations with transcendence: “In the last year roughly, the US features experienced life-threatening problems with each of our domestic flow of tomatoes, spinach, peanut rechausser, imported seafoods and even family pet food.

Worse, many professionals predict the fact that next terrorist attack could focus on our food supply. So , why is the FDA losing its precious resources complaining about what fonts Redux is using to advertise our product? ” (just-drinks. com content team, 2008). In this condition using a approach such as transcendence cannot lead to anything positive. Kirby charged the FDA of disturbing him which includes ridiculous promises while essential work ought to be in progress.

Then the company disorders the FDA and makes entertaining of the agency saying: “School teachers almost everywhere should certainly be on observe that things drafted in chalk will be scrutinized more strongly by the authorities and could subject the chalk-bearer to city and criminal liability. Not sure from the authorities on whether a chalk prohibit is subsequent, but institution districts across the nation would be well-advised to consider a shift to dry-erase boards. But please, intended for goodness sake, do NOT smell those guns! ” (just-drinks. com editorial team, 2008).

Eventually Redux Beverages decided to use another image fix strategy – corrective action – and announced that the firm can be working to address the FDA’s concerns and correct the infractions that the organization had recognized. The case of Redux Beverages from the Image restoration Theory could serve as a great example presenting a script to get image annulation. Redux Refreshments has not completed anything to lift up up the company’s public photo after the onset of crisis. Almost all press releases created by Redux during Cocaine controversy didn’t aid to persuade the population that their very own concerns will be unnecessary and groundless, but instead reassured them that Redux doesn’t worry about anything else than sales and profit.

Seeing that public opinion about the company and its particular product are extremely important in Cocaine crisis, the case could be also reviewed from the perspective of Group Opinion Formation Process. Various people share concerns about impressionable teams such as young adults or young adults who might be easily motivated by advertising or colleagues that can cause some careless decisions. Many adults behave with attaque when they notice that their children can be exposed to things such as cigarettes, liquor, sex or perhaps drugs. According to Struges (1994) theory of Group Opinion Development these problems could be labeled as the first thing of group opinion creation (1)”latent issue”.

Redux Beverages’ launch of Cocaine energy drink could be the second step representing the (2) causing event. Then this controversy and people’s issue would stand for the next two steps in the process – (3) creation of advantages and disadvantages and (4) debate avertissement. Then the onset of crisis could represent (5) the time lapses which leads to (6) development of public’s opinion. In case there is Cocaine turmoil the public’s opinion about the business was generally negative – Redux Refreshments has received many words of criticism and contempt. The final two steps involve creation of (7) social actions and (8) social norm (Struges, 1994).

Generating and maintaining a good public thoughts and opinions is vital for organizations, as a result if the initial opinion about an organization is great, then the probability of keeping this kind of perception during crisis happen to be significantly larger. Redux Drinks has generated a negative community opinion through the onset of Crack crisis, in the event that to guess that the company will face an additional crisis later on it will be considerably more difficult to gain the support of the open public and make a positive public image. The idea purposed by simply Struges (1994) is to some degree related to Coombs (2007) theory of Situational Crisis Interaction.

The SCCT recognizes status as “a valuable, intangible asset” which will “can attract customers, generate investment curiosity, improve financial performance, appeal to top-employee skill, increase the go back on resources, create competitive advantage and garner great comments by financial analysts” (Coombs, 2007). Organizations with better popularity before turmoil will still have better standing than companies which pre-crisis reputation was poor (Coombs, 2007). In the event of Redux Drinks the crisis which experienced occurred between 2006 and 2008 was not too significant. The company got encountered a lot of financial failures due to the temporary cease of distribution and many rebranding activities.

Still, the crisis dealt mainly together with the firm’s open public image and reputation loss. According to Situational Problems Communication Unit if Redux Beverages should be to face a far more serious crisis in the future the business is very very likely to suffer considerably more than in the aftermath of Cocaine controversy. The two elements linked to the earlier crisis – crisis history and prior romantic relationship reputation is going to negatively impact the attribution of crisis responsibility. Knowing what tactics Redux Drinks used to handle the previous problems it is very most likely that the potential crisis response strategies will even increase the don of turmoil responsibility.

Redux Beverages poor reputation and high attribution of catastrophe responsibility can lead to public’s unfavorable reaction to a company. In case of an additional crisis, Redux Beverages is more likely to be kept fully responsible for the unpleasant act. Redux Beverages never have done any kind of work to arrange for any potential crisis.

The firm will not follow any of the ten guidelines for risk and turmoil communication purposed by Venette (which include: 1 . Method approaches and policy approaches – there is no data released regarding any policies formulated by Redux Refreshments. 2 . Pre-event planning – Redux Drinks was not ready for the crisis caused by controversy encircle sales of Cocaine and continues their operations without the pre-crisis organizing. No data has been introduced that would state otherwise. a few. Partnership while using public – Redux drinks seems to worry about the sales, and thus of the buyers. Continue to Redux doesn’t seem to be concerned about their consumer’s health and disregards any doubts about the safety of their highly caffeinated merchandise.

4. Tune in to the public’s concerns and understand the target audience – Redux Beverages did not address the public’s problems regarding the likelihood of selling an item that is being sold as a streets drug substitute. 5. Honesty, candor and openness – Redux Refreshments repeatedly rejected comments and interviews with proves the honestly and openness are not the company’s priorities. 6th.

Collaborate and coordinate with credible resources – the conflict while using Food and Drug Administration signifies that the organization doesn’t collaborate and is not really coordinated with credible options. 7. Meet the needs of the mass media and continue to be accessible eight. Communicate with empathy, concern, and empathy – Redux Beverages fails to communicate in this manner. being unfaithful. Accept uncertainty and halving 10. Communications of self-efficacy.

The way in which Redux Beverages chose to manage the crisis caused by the controversy surrounding the launch of your new energy drink has not been very effective. The crises communication strategies selected by the corporation didn’t genuinely help its reputation and basically a new solid foundation for even more difficult crisis down the road. The misplaced reputation of the company will cause that any small mistake with them will never be perceived as an accident or misfortune, but rather as their own fault. Redux Beverages hasn’t gained any kind of support in the eye of the public, nor regulating and legal agencies.

The sole success of Redux Beverages is that the business gained the rights to re-release and resume the sales with the energy beverage with a questionable name – Cocaine. Recommendations Benoit, T. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Assessment, 23(2), 177-186.

Benoit, T. L., & Czerwinski, A.. (1997). A critical analysis of USAir’s graphic repair discourse. Business Connection Quarterly, 60(3), 38-57. Burnett, E. (Speaker). (2007). Cocaine energy drink [Television series episode].

In CNBC Street Symptoms. New York. Crack drink promises to be genuine thing. (2006, September 21). Mail On-line, Retrieved coming from http://www. dailymail. co. uk/news/article-406304/Cocaine-drink-claims-real-thing. html Coombs, T. W. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a catastrophe: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory.

Business Reputation Review. 10(3), 163-176 Crisis description. (n. d. ). Retrieved from http://www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/crisis Cruse, A. E.. Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration, Los Angeles Section. (2007). Warning (W/L 10-07).

Irvine, LOS ANGELES: U. S. Department of Health & Human Providers. Retrieved via http://www. food and drug administration (fda). gov/ICECI/Enforcement Actions/WarningLetters/2007ucm076349. htm Douaud, C.. (2007, June 19). Cocaine should go no-name. Nutraingredients USA, Recovered from http://www. nutringredients-usa. com/Industry/Cocaine-goes-no-name Fearn-Banks, T. (1996).

Catastrophe communications: A casebook procedure. Mahwah, NJ-NEW JERSEY: Lawrence Erlbaumn Just-drinks. com editorial team.. (2008, September 11). US: Redux accelerates cocaine rebranding on food and drug administration pressure.

Recovered from http://www. just-drinks. com/news/redux-accelerates- cocaine-rebranding-on-fda-pressure_id94412. aspx Mooney, S. N.. (2006, October 27). Cocaine energy drink pulled from 7-eleven shelves [Web journal message]. Retrieved from http://www. associatedcontent. com/article/78750/cocaine_energy_drink_pulled_from_7el even. html code? cat=71 Nguyen, B. (Speaker). (2007). In CNN News Room.

New york city: CNN. Nizza, M. (2007, May 7). The end of cocaine the beverage [Web sign message]. Retrieved from http://thelede. blogs. nytimes. com/2007/05/07the-end-of-cocaine-the-beverage/ Other,. (2008, Feb . 6).

Crack energy beverage back on the shelves. Convenience Store News, Recovered from http://www. csw. com/top-story- cocaine_energy_drink_back_on_the_shelves-43048. html code Redux Beverages, LLC,. (n. d. ). Cocaine Strength. Retrieved from http://www. drinkcocaine. com Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M.. (2001).

Exploring the limitations of turmoil communication: the truth of the 1997 Red River Valley overflow. Communication Research, 52(2), 152-167. Serrano, A.. (2007, May 7). “Cocaine” pulled by shelves country wide. CBS Media, Retrieved from http://www. cbsnews. com/stories/2007/05/07/health/main277254. shtml Struges, G. L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A technique for organizational survival.

Managing Communication Quarterly. 7(3), 297-318. Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, To. L. (2000). Consistent queries of halving in organizational crisis communication: Jack in the Box being a case study.

Record of Organization Ethics, 25(2), 143- one hundred fifty five. Venette, S i9000. J. (2006). Special section introduction: Best practices in risk and turmoil communication. Diary of Utilized Communication Exploration.

34(3), 229-231. William Pres,. (2008). Crack – the brand new energy beverage. Retrieved by http://hubpages. com/hub/Cocaine_-_The_NEW_energy_drink.