外文翻譯--企業(yè)品牌的聲譽(yù)和品牌危機(jī)管理

1、<p><b>　　中文4030字</b></p><p>　　標(biāo)題：Corporate brand reputation and brand crisis management</p><p>　　原文：For some years, the what, why, and how of recognising and addressing brand cr

2、isis – particularly corporate/organisational brand crisis – has occupied my research attention (note to reader: “corporate” and “organisational” are used interchangeably). Numerous corporate and non-profit entities have

3、provided public clinical experiences of confronting serious reputational crises. Examples over recent decades include Exxon (the Valdez oil spill incident), Union Carbide (the Bhopal explosion), Perri</p><p>

4、;　　While some were more product brand-rooted (e.g. Tylenol), all found their corporate brand affected, and efforts to rescue the brand were undertaken at the corporate level (e.g. Johnson and Johnson for Tylenol, markete

5、d by J&J's McNeil Laboratories Unit). Thus these incidents provide a rich source of insight into the corporate brand. They illustrate a key dimension of corporate-level marketing.</p><p>　　“Can we as

6、 an institution, have meaningful, positive and profitable bilateral on-going relationships with customers and other stakeholder groups and communities?”. That was a central question of an organisation's corporate-lev

7、el marketing orientation posed by John Balmer and myself in our treatment of an integrated approach to marketing at the institutional level (Balmer and Greyser, 2006).</p><p>　　We held (among other points) t

8、hat corporate marketing is indeed a boardroom and CEO concern. In reflecting on corporate identity and reputation in times of brand crisis, one recognises the importance of corporate-wide orientation and the responsibili

9、ty of the CEO and company-wide managers.</p><p>　　Sources of reputational trouble</p><p>　　Let me offer an anatomy of the kinds of reasons brands can be in reputational crisis, how to know that

10、the situation is serious, and what steps companies can try to take to prevent or if necessary to overcome such crises.</p><p>　　Reputational troubles can come in many forms, from a wide variety of causes and

11、 from many publics. Some have been sudden, such as when seven people died in a single day from tainted Tylenol capsules, when traces of benzene were found in bottles of Perrier and when an explosion in a Union Carbide fa

12、cility in India killed many hundreds of people. Others were the result of problems that festered over longer periods, such as the priest sex abuse scandal affecting many Catholic archdioceses in the US</p><p&g

13、t;　　Organisations must recognise the “what” of the issue generating the reputational threats, as well as “who” the involved public(s) is/are.</p><p>　　Here is a categorisation of different causes of corporat

14、e brand crises, with some examples and some brief explanations:</p><p>　　Product failure – Tylenol, Perrier, Firestone (tires implicated as the cause of many deaths in car accidents), the Chernobyl nucl

15、ear plant disaster, Intel's Pentium chip (flawed calculations), Peanut Corp. of America (salmonella).</p><p>　　Social responsibility gap – Nike (non-US labour and questionable working conditions).&l

16、t;/p><p>　　Corporate misbehaviour – Arthur Andersen, Enron, Exxon (oil spill in Alaska), Merck (alleged suppression of early clinical drug trials of Vioxx), Siemens (corporate corruption in multinational f

17、raud and bribery), Hewlett-Packard (Chairman indicted for spying on board members via questionable investigative means), IOC/SLOC (scandals regarding bid cities).</p><p>　　Executive misbehaviour – Marth

18、a Stewart, Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco).</p><p>　　Poor business results – Polaroid (failure to adapt technologically), Circuit City (giant retailer which let go many of its most knowledgeable store staff), a

19、nd many others particularly in 2008.</p><p>　　Spokesperson misbehaviour and controversy – Kobe Bryant (star NBA athlete and endorser of brands who was accused of rape).</p><p>　　Death of sy

20、mbol of company – Wendy's (fast food chain) founder and TV spokesperson Dave Thomas, the “face of the brand”.</p><p>　　Loss of public support – Louis XVI of France (guillotined and monarchy fel

21、l), Edward VIII of England (forced to abdicate the British throne); both lost their ability to be seen by their people as “a symbol of nationhood,” central to the “monarchic corporate brand” (Balmer et al., 2006).&l

22、t;/p><p>　　Controversial ownership – Venezuela and CITGO in the USA (vigorously anti-US Venezuelan president).</p><p>　　Assessing the seriousness of the situation</p><p>　　What ma

23、de some of these crises life-threatening to the organisations involved was that they affected what I term “the essence of the brand”, i.e. the distinctive attribute/characteristic most closely associated with the brand&#

24、39;s meaning and success. When this occurs a company's marketplace position and its brand meaning are seriously challenged. If the essence of the brand is not central to the situation, the problem is more likely to b

25、e overcome, albeit still troublesome.</p><p>　　Here are four key areas, with some brief comments, that organisations should examine to analyze an emerging (or emerged) issue that may threaten its brand's

26、 reputation:</p><p>　　The brand elements:</p><p>　　Brand's marketplace situation, e.g. market share or corporate favourability (prior to crisis). The weaker the situation, the more dangerous

27、 the problem.</p><p>　　Brand strengths/weaknesses. The more differentiated (vs other entities), the better it is for the affected company, unless a key differentiation is the subject at issue (see “integrity

28、 of athletic competition” below).</p><p>　　Essence of the brand's meaning (see examples below).</p><p>　　The crisis situation:</p><p>　　Seriousness of situation at outset. If th

29、e problem prospectively affects many consumers or some severely, e.g. salmonella in food leading to deaths, the seriousness is higher.</p><p>　　Its threat to brand's position/meaning (see text examples i

30、n “consequences” below).</p><p>　　Company initiatives:</p><p>　　Impact on brand and problem situation of company behaviour/actions, especially communications; this can be examined at the plannin

31、g stage as “l(fā)ikely” impact.</p><p>　　Results (after initiatives and/or passage of time):</p><p>　　Effectiveness of initiatives in terms of recovery/relaunch, restoring brand meaning, and fa

32、vourability or market share.</p><p>　　Action in brand reputational crises</p><p>　　What can and should companies/organisations do when threatened by brand crises? Where does communications fit i

33、n? My principal recommendation relates to situations of “bad news about the company and the news is really true”.</p><p>　　In the face of crisis, especially when it is rooted in a problem that is or will bec

34、ome visible, I believe an organisation should admit the truth, even if embarrassing. Also, it should forthrightly try to address the problem, even if it involves changing corporate behaviour. And it should support the in

35、itiative with credible communications. These are the best (but still bumpy) roads to possible brand rehabilitation or rescue.. Communications alone cannot do the job</p><p>　　Substance – i.e. behaviour – is

36、central (e.g. the quick recall of Tylenol from distribution) to an effective defensive program. An allied communications effort can be important and helpful. However, the message must avoid serving as a “reminder campaig

37、n”, especially if the underlying problem/allegation is not widely known by relevant publics.</p><p>　　Credible communications were an issue for Wal-mart in its early 2005 corporate communications campaign “W

38、al-Mart is working for everyone”. The message was a response to critics of its wages and benefits for its workers and its impacts on the communities where its stores are located. Some observers (including myself) raised

39、the question of how this message could be effective when the company was being widely criticised (with extensive media coverage) for reportedly closing a store where employees</p><p>　　Sometimes even any com

40、munications can be questionable. CITGO found itself in a reputational brouhaha in the US in late 2006 when Venezuela's president attacked President Bush at the UN (CITGO's parent is a Venezuelan petroleum company

41、). A major retail gas station operator ended its relationship with CITGO as a supplier, allegedly connected to the widely publicized political attack. Although only a modest proportion of Americans were said to know of t

42、he ownership linkage, CITGO decided to underta</p><p>　　As I have suggested, forthright corporate action often is the most sensible route. Merck, the third-largest US pharmaceutical manufacturer, suffered an

43、 attack on its reputation because of its actions regarding Vioxx, a pain medication. It was revealed that several years before the company withdrew Vioxx (2004), its internal documents raised questions about risks of str

44、okes and heart attacks associated with the drug. Obviously this was a serious situation for the company's reputation especially s</p><p>　　An unusual corporate action in the face of criticism was taken b

45、y the major accounting firm KPMG in 2005. Under attack by the US Government for the creation and sale of tax shelters claimed to have cost the Treasury billions of tax dollars, KPMG admitted “unlawful conduct.” What was

46、said to lie behind the move was the company's fear of criminal indictment, which in the case of Arthur Andersen had been a major step leading to its demise (New York Times, 2005).</p><p>　　If the organis

47、ation truly believes that bad news about it is false, there is an opportunity to correct the misimpression. However, the communications (e.g. corporate statements) must be supported by evidence and have a clear ring of c

48、redibility. When Audi was confronted with “sudden unintended acceleration” problems, its initial responses attributed the blame to driver error. This became a matter of considerable public debate, well covered by media.

49、Later, despite considerable internal engineeri</p><p>　　Two other situations exist beyond “the bad news is true” and “the bad news is clearly false”, namely “the good news is true” and “the good news is actu

50、ally false”. My advice in the first situation is to feel good and work hard to maintain whatever actions have yielded what relevant publics consider good news. Communications can be helpful to the corporate cause if the

51、information is supported by external credible research, such as “voted best company to work for”. This of course puts the onus on</p><p>　　As part of an organisational planning exercise, one might ask these

52、questions about the organisation's brand:</p><p>　　What do you think is the essence of your corporate brand's meaning to consumers, to the trade, to other key stakeholders?</p><p>　　What

53、 could cause your brand to undergo a brand crisis?</p><p>　　How seriously would this affect the brand's reputation? How? Why?</p><p>　　Lessons learned</p><p>　　From my experienc

54、es and study of many crisis situations, let me offer four lessons in very abbreviated form:</p><p>　　Let us start with a look in the mirror. Understand your organisation's identity as others see it – not

55、 what the company says it wants to be. The latter is important, but perceptions are central. Know the brand's meaning to key stakeholders, and what could threaten its core. And monitor public approval and support of

56、the company under different scenarios of trouble –, e.g. a strike, an environmental problem, etc. In short, understand the organisation's brand essence and what could seriously threa</p><p>　　Potential r

57、eputational problems are legion. They come in many forms, and from many publics (stakeholders). But not all affect the essence of the brand. In all instances, the organisation must understand what and whom it is defendin

58、g against.</p><p>　　In the event of brand reputational crisis, focus on forthrightness in communications, and on truly substantive credible responses in behaviour. These are the most likely avenues to rescue

59、 a brand in crisis. They may restore trust, although that is not guaranteed. The most important actions in a reputational crisis, however, can be the ones taken over time to build a “reputational reservoir”, a strong fou

60、ndation for the corporate reputation. In some crises, a company can draw down on that reservo</p><p>　　Remember that because a corporate brand is as wide as the organisation, the CEO is the ultimate guardian

61、 of the corporation's reputation.</p><p>　　出處：Stephen A. Greyser. Corporate brand reputation and brand crisis management [J] Management Decision .2009.47(4), PP. 590-602</p><p>　　標(biāo)題：企業(yè)品牌的聲譽(yù)和

62、品牌危機(jī)管理</p><p>　　譯文：這些年來，什么是品牌危機(jī)以及如何認(rèn)識(shí)和處理品牌危機(jī)，特別是企業(yè)或組織的品牌危機(jī)，是我研究的重點(diǎn)。眾多公司和非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)提供了面臨嚴(yán)重聲譽(yù)危機(jī)時(shí)危機(jī)公關(guān)的臨床經(jīng)驗(yàn)。近幾十年來的例子包括埃克森（瓦爾迪茲石油泄漏事件），聯(lián)合碳化物（博帕爾爆炸），佩里耶（苯痕跡），泰諾（毒丸從死亡），美國(guó)天主教教會(huì)（牧師性虐待），瑪莎斯圖爾特OmniMedia（行政不當(dāng)行為），安達(dá)信（會(huì)計(jì)丑聞），國(guó)

63、際奧林匹克委員會(huì)（賄賂問題）等等。他們的品牌已經(jīng)受到了威脅，表現(xiàn)在消費(fèi)者和企業(yè)客戶認(rèn)同度的下降和公眾的信任度的下降。</p><p>　　一些產(chǎn)品的品牌根深蒂固（如泰諾），并都具有企業(yè)品牌的影響力，在公司層面上努力地進(jìn)行挽救企業(yè)品牌（如泰諾強(qiáng)生公司，由強(qiáng)生公司麥克尼爾實(shí)驗(yàn)室的單位銷售）。 因此，這些事件向企業(yè)提供一個(gè)了解品牌方面知識(shí)的豐富來源。它們說明了企業(yè)營(yíng)銷的關(guān)鍵方面的內(nèi)容。</p>

64、<p>　　“我們可以作為一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)，積極地維持顧客及其他利益相關(guān)群體的雙邊利益和社區(qū)關(guān)系是有意義的嗎？”。這是由約翰和我用我們的一套綜合的治療方法在一定制度水平上提出的關(guān)于企業(yè)組織的營(yíng)銷導(dǎo)向的核心問題。（巴爾默和Greyser，2006年）。</p><p>　　我們認(rèn)為的企業(yè)營(yíng)銷的確需要一個(gè)董事會(huì)和首席執(zhí)行官的關(guān)注。在反思企業(yè)形象和品牌信譽(yù)危機(jī)的時(shí)候，就應(yīng)該認(rèn)識(shí)到全公司定位的重要性及行政總裁和公司級(jí)管

65、理人員的責(zé)任。</p><p><b>　　聲譽(yù)麻煩的來源</b></p><p>　　讓我來提供各種品牌聲譽(yù)危機(jī)的產(chǎn)生原因的解析，如何知道情況的嚴(yán)重性，以及公司可以嘗試什么步驟以防止和克服這種危機(jī)。</p><p>　　聲譽(yù)麻煩可以有許多形式，從各種各樣的和許多公眾中變現(xiàn)出來。 有些是突如其來的，例如當(dāng)七人在一天之內(nèi)死于污染的泰諾膠

66、囊，當(dāng)苯的痕跡在Perrier的瓶子中被發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)在印度一家聯(lián)合碳化物公司的工廠爆炸導(dǎo)致數(shù)百人喪生。 另一些人的問題影響是更長(zhǎng)久的，例如牧師的性侵犯在美國(guó)的影響，會(huì)計(jì)丑聞最終斷送了一度受人尊敬的會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所安達(dá)信，或主辦城市的選擇中的行賄丑聞使得國(guó)際奧委會(huì)的聲譽(yù)受損。一些抗議或關(guān)心來自于團(tuán)體，也有來自于心懷不滿的消費(fèi)者或客戶客戶的、一些政府或監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)和一些大眾。</p><p>　　企業(yè)必須認(rèn)識(shí)到什么問題

67、威脅到了企業(yè)聲譽(yù)以及誰公開的。</p><p>　　這里是一個(gè)企業(yè)品牌危機(jī)的不同成因分類與一些例子的簡(jiǎn)要解釋：</p><p>　　1、產(chǎn)品故障 -泰諾，佩里耶，凡世通（事故車輪胎牽連的許多死亡的原因），切爾諾貝利核電站災(zāi)難，英特爾的奔騰芯片（有缺陷的計(jì)算），美國(guó)公司的花生（沙門氏菌）。</p><p>　　2、社會(huì)責(zé)任的差距 -耐克（非美國(guó)勞工

68、和工作條件問題）。</p><p>　　3、企業(yè)不良行為 -安達(dá)信，安然，?？松ㄊ驮诎⒗辜勇┯停?，默克（Vioxx的涉嫌鎮(zhèn)壓的臨床藥物試驗(yàn)的早期階段），西門子（企業(yè)貪污賄賂犯罪跨國(guó)詐騙），惠普（經(jīng)董事會(huì)起訴從事間諜活動(dòng)通過問題的調(diào)查手段成員），國(guó)際奧委會(huì)/土壤活性有機(jī)碳（有關(guān)申辦城市的丑聞）。</p><p>　　4、行政不當(dāng)行為 -瑪莎斯圖爾特，丹尼斯科茲洛夫斯

69、基（泰科）。</p><p>　　5、業(yè)績(jī)不好的結(jié)果 -寶麗（未能適應(yīng)技術(shù)），電路城（零售業(yè)巨頭這讓許多工作人員前往其最熟悉店），并于2008年許多企業(yè)尤為如此。</p><p>　　6、發(fā)言人行為不檢和爭(zhēng)議 ，科比-布萊恩特（NBA品牌代言人明星運(yùn)動(dòng)員被告強(qiáng)奸）。</p><p>　　7、公司的死亡象征 -溫迪（快餐連鎖）的創(chuàng)始人和電

70、視發(fā)言人戴夫托馬斯，關(guān)于“面對(duì)品牌”</p><p>　　8、支持喪失公共 -法國(guó)的路易十六（斷頭臺(tái)和君主制下降），英國(guó)的愛德華八世（英國(guó)被迫放棄王位，都失去了他們的能力被人看到他們?yōu)椤耙粋€(gè)國(guó)家地位的象征，”中央對(duì)“君主的企業(yè)品牌”（ 巴爾末等，2006 ）。</p><p>　　9、有爭(zhēng)議的所有權(quán) –委內(nèi)瑞拉和CITGO（大力反美的委內(nèi)瑞拉總統(tǒng)）。

71、</p><p><b>　　評(píng)估局勢(shì)的嚴(yán)重性</b></p><p>　　是什么使這些危機(jī)威脅到一些組織的生存，是他們影響了我所謂“品牌的本質(zhì)”，即獨(dú)特的屬性或特征是與品牌的內(nèi)涵和成功密切相關(guān)。 當(dāng)發(fā)生這種情況發(fā)生時(shí)公司的市場(chǎng)地位和品牌內(nèi)涵都面臨著嚴(yán)重的挑戰(zhàn)。 如果品牌的本質(zhì)不是中心環(huán)節(jié)，那么問題更容易被克服，盡管仍然麻煩。</p>

72、<p>　　這里有四個(gè)關(guān)鍵領(lǐng)域的一些簡(jiǎn)短的評(píng)論，即組織應(yīng)研究分析一可能威脅到其品牌的聲譽(yù)的新的或已出現(xiàn)的問題：</p><p><b>　　1、該品牌元素：</b></p><p>　　品牌的市場(chǎng)情況，如市場(chǎng)份額或（危機(jī)前）的企業(yè)的有利情況。 較弱的情況及更危險(xiǎn)的問題。</p><p>　　品牌優(yōu)勢(shì)或劣勢(shì)。 越是

73、的與其他實(shí)體有區(qū)別，越能更好的影響公司，除非是在關(guān)鍵的問題上有分歧。</p><p><b>　　品牌的本質(zhì)意義。</b></p><p><b>　　2、危機(jī)情況：</b></p><p>　　一開始就有嚴(yán)峻的形式。 如果這一問題提前影響到了許多消費(fèi)者或者更加嚴(yán)重，例如，在食品中的沙門氏菌導(dǎo)致人的死亡，這樣的問

74、題就更加嚴(yán)重。</p><p>　　威脅到品牌的地位或本質(zhì)。</p><p>　　3、公司倡議 ：影響公司的品牌和問題行為或行動(dòng)，特別是通訊，在計(jì)劃階段有可能的影響可以被檢查到。</p><p>　　4、結(jié)果（實(shí)施措施一段時(shí)間之后）：恢復(fù)或重新啟動(dòng)有效的措施，恢復(fù)品牌內(nèi)涵，和有利的市場(chǎng)或市場(chǎng)占有率。</p><p>　　在品牌信譽(yù)危

75、機(jī)中的措施</p><p>　　當(dāng)品牌危機(jī)威脅到公司，公司能夠和必須做些什么？ 哪里適合交流？ 我的主要建議涉及到的情況是“公司真正的壞的消息”。</p><p>　　在面對(duì)危機(jī)，尤其是當(dāng)它已經(jīng)是一個(gè)問題或?qū)⒊蔀閱栴}時(shí)，我相信一個(gè)組織應(yīng)當(dāng)承認(rèn)這個(gè)事實(shí)，即使尷尬。此外，它應(yīng)該直截了當(dāng)?shù)貒L試解決這個(gè)問題，哪怕這意味著這是改變企業(yè)的行為。并且它應(yīng)支持有效交流的主動(dòng)權(quán)。

76、0;這是最好的（但仍是坎坷的）康復(fù)治療或救援品牌的道路。交流溝通是不能單獨(dú)就能完成的工作。</p><p>　　實(shí)質(zhì) - 即行為 - 是一個(gè)至關(guān)重要的（例如，從快速召回分布的泰諾）有效的防御計(jì)劃。一個(gè)相關(guān)聯(lián)的溝通工作也很重要和有益的。但是，這一消息必須避免成為一個(gè)“提醒活動(dòng)”。特別是如果基本問題或指控沒有被相關(guān)公眾所熟知。</p><p>　　可信的傳播是沃爾瑪在2005年初發(fā)動(dòng) “沃爾瑪

77、是為每個(gè)人工作的”的傳播活動(dòng)。該消息是對(duì)工人的工資和福利有不滿和對(duì)沃爾瑪所在這區(qū)的一些影響的回應(yīng)。一些觀察家（包括我自己）提出當(dāng)該公司因?yàn)槊襟w報(bào)道員工們?cè)噲D組織工會(huì)關(guān)閉商店和公司因?yàn)槠缫暸毠け黄鹪V而廣受批評(píng)時(shí)如何才能讓這一消息變得有效果。在我看來，公司在傳播方面的努力和這個(gè)特定的消息或主題不太可能是有效的。</p><p>　　有時(shí)甚至任何傳播都可以讓人懷疑。當(dāng)委內(nèi)瑞拉總統(tǒng)在聯(lián)合國(guó)抨擊美國(guó)總統(tǒng)布什時(shí)2006年底

78、美國(guó)的CITGO發(fā)現(xiàn)他的聲譽(yù)受損（CITGO的母公司是一家的委內(nèi)瑞拉是有公司）。一個(gè)主要的零售加油站經(jīng)營(yíng)者結(jié)束了他與CITGO的供應(yīng)商關(guān)系。據(jù)稱這已經(jīng)和政治攻擊有關(guān)聯(lián)了，CITGO決定進(jìn)行一項(xiàng)宣傳運(yùn)動(dòng)，“ CITGO設(shè)置了直接記錄”，強(qiáng)調(diào)公司良好的公民身份和美國(guó)主要雇主的角色。此后不久，公司還進(jìn)行了形象建設(shè)活動(dòng)。一些專家同意這樣的努力，有的認(rèn)為應(yīng)繼續(xù)響應(yīng)傳播，也有的說，非廣告?zhèn)鞑?yīng)該被使用。不過，其他人則認(rèn)為，這一運(yùn)動(dòng)推動(dòng)了更多的公眾對(duì)

79、根本問題的認(rèn)識(shí)，不應(yīng)該進(jìn)行。隨后的局勢(shì)平靜下來，因?yàn)槊绹?guó)人把石油坎作一種產(chǎn)品，而不是它的所有權(quán)。</p><p>　　正如我所說，直率的行動(dòng)往往是企業(yè)最明智的路線。默克公司美國(guó)第三大制藥商默克公司，其聲譽(yù)因?yàn)槠潢P(guān)于萬絡(luò)，止痛藥物而遭受了聲譽(yù)攻擊。據(jù)透露，幾年前公司撤回萬絡(luò)（2004年），其內(nèi)部文件中對(duì)藥物對(duì)中風(fēng)和心臟病發(fā)作有影響提出質(zhì)疑。 顯然，這是對(duì)公司聲譽(yù)來說是一個(gè)嚴(yán)峻的形勢(shì)尤其是公司欲數(shù)以千計(jì)的損

80、傷和死亡投訴有關(guān)，并且病人或者家屬將原因歸結(jié)到藥物上。三年之后退出，失去了一些機(jī)會(huì)單贏得了很多，默克公司用4.85億美元解決了45000個(gè)這樣的例子（ 波士頓環(huán)球報(bào) ，2007年11月9日 ），默克公司的行動(dòng)是昂貴的，但允許該公司在剩余的經(jīng)濟(jì)情況下提出。默克公司的行為，幫助解決一個(gè)嚴(yán)重的威脅。</p><p>　　在2005年一家主要的會(huì)計(jì)事務(wù)所畢馬威會(huì)計(jì)事務(wù)所在面對(duì)批評(píng)時(shí)被了。在美

81、國(guó)政府為創(chuàng)造和銷售所得稅聲稱有稅收有數(shù)十億美元的壓力下，畢馬威承認(rèn)“這是非法行為?！北澈蟮闹e言是什么，此舉是該公司的恐懼的刑事起訴書，這在阿瑟安德森案件是重要的一步了導(dǎo)致它的失敗的重要一步（ 紐約時(shí)報(bào) ，2005 ）。如果該組織真正相信壞消息是假的，這里是有機(jī)會(huì)糾正錯(cuò)誤的印象的。然而，信息（如企業(yè)報(bào)表）必須有證據(jù)的支持。當(dāng)奧迪面臨“突然意外加速”的問題時(shí)，它的初步反應(yīng)歸咎于驅(qū)動(dòng)程序錯(cuò)誤。這成為了相當(dāng)大的公共

82、辯論的問題，深受媒體報(bào)道。后來，盡管有相當(dāng)大的內(nèi)部工程勘察，奧迪始終無法找出問題的真正原因。它采取了新的工程（如自動(dòng)換檔鎖目前在同行業(yè)中被廣泛采用）和幾年的低銷售額為品牌的卷土重來做了準(zhǔn)備。</p><p>　　另外兩個(gè)情況存在于 “壞消息是真實(shí)的”和“壞消息顯然是假的”之外，即“好消息是真實(shí)的”和“好消息是真的假的”。我在第一種情況的建議是，感覺良好并努力保持的任何行動(dòng)都能取得了相關(guān)公眾認(rèn)可。信息是對(duì)企業(yè)目標(biāo)是

83、有幫助的如果信息通過外部研究是可信的的話，如 “票選最佳公司的工作” 。當(dāng)然，為了保持特性組織應(yīng)該擔(dān)負(fù)起責(zé)任。 在第二種情況下（“好消息是真的假的”），一個(gè)公司需要很快的解決現(xiàn)實(shí)的問題（特別是如果有關(guān)聲譽(yù)方面，如安全問題），并希望它能夠保持低調(diào)，直至情況得到糾正。</p><p>　　作為一個(gè)組織規(guī)劃工作的一部分，人們或許會(huì)問到關(guān)于組織的品牌的這些問題：</p><p>

84、;　　1、你認(rèn)為你的企業(yè)品牌對(duì)消費(fèi)者、業(yè)內(nèi)人士和其他主要利益相關(guān)者的來說是什么本質(zhì)？</p><p>　　2、這是什么原因使你的品牌經(jīng)歷一個(gè)品牌危機(jī)？</p><p>　　3、這將如何和為什么會(huì)嚴(yán)重影響了品牌的聲譽(yù)？</p><p><b>　　吸取的經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)</b></p><p>　　從我的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和研究的許多危機(jī)情況下

85、，我就以簡(jiǎn)略形式提供了四個(gè)教訓(xùn)：</p><p>　　1、讓我們來從鏡子中看一看。 了解其他人看組織的身份-而不是公司所說的想成為什么樣的。 后者是重要的，但消費(fèi)者的感知才是核心。了解這個(gè)品牌的關(guān)鍵利益相關(guān)體的意義以及什么可能威脅到它的核心。 公開審監(jiān)督和支持公司在不同情況下遇到的麻煩如罷工，環(huán)境問題等?？傊?，了解該組織的品牌精髓和什么會(huì)使他受到嚴(yán)重的威脅。</p>&

86、lt;p>　　2、潛在的聲譽(yù)的問題是多方面的。 他們有許多形式，來自許多民眾（股東）。但是，并非所有都影響品牌的精髓。在所有情況下，組織必須了解它是什么并知道誰來解決它。</p><p>　　3、在品牌信譽(yù)危機(jī)中，重點(diǎn)在直率的通信，事件和行為的真正實(shí)質(zhì)性和可性。這是拯救處于危機(jī)中的一個(gè)品牌最有可能的途徑。他們可能恢復(fù)信任，盡管這不能保證。在信譽(yù)危機(jī)的最重要的行動(dòng)中，隨著時(shí)間的推移可以采取建立“聲譽(yù)

87、蓄水池”，作為企業(yè)信譽(yù)的一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的基礎(chǔ)。在一些危機(jī)，公司可以動(dòng)用該水庫(kù)。</p><p>　　請(qǐng)記住一個(gè)企業(yè)品牌是廣泛的機(jī)構(gòu)，CEO是該公司的聲譽(yù)最終監(jiān)護(hù)人。</p><p>　　出處：Stephen A. Greyser. Corporate brand reputation and brand crisis management [J] Management Decision .200