Print this chapterPrint this chapter

Managing Crisis Communication via Social Media

Discussion

The main aim of this paper was to determine whether there is a certain type of social media crisis communication consumers prefer. The survey conducted examined consumers' perception of a specific crisis situation and crisis communication that occurred via social media channels. It also provided an insight into what crisis communication should be like in general. In short, this specific crisis situation could be considered a major one – more than half of the consumers would cease to use services from a service provider that is unable to provide adequate service. Participants are not very fond of this specific example of crisis communication, but at the same time, they are not dissatisfied. One of the main improvements they would appreciate is a change in the tone of voice which should have been more personal. They would also want crisis communication to take place via a range of social media channels (they would prefer Facebook, Twitter and Instagram over YouTube) and via the official company website. However, they are satisfied with the content of crisis communication message.

Schultz, Utz and Göritz showed that the choice of a medium is more important than the message itself. This means it is more important where an organization communicates during a crisis rather than what exactly the message is. The participants would expect two (types of) channels to be chosen in a particular situation they were shown – social media (such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and official the website. According to Coombs and Reichart and taking Schultz, Utz and Göritz's research into consideration, this is an expectation that should be met. Otherwise, an expectation gap can become problematic, especially reputation-wise. If almost 60% of the participants would be prepared to stop using services from this company, reputation salvaging is crucial to the company's survival.

Even though the exact content of the message may not be the most important, the participants would still want more than just an apology. Sturges agrees, stating that crisis communication content should be oriented toward instructions. This, of course, includes both an internal public that demands more extensive information, and an external public that needs reassuring. The participants somewhat agree that this crisis communication said everything that needed to be said but would have preferred it be said in a more personal tone of voice – one of the aspects they agree should be changed. Jahng and Hong's research concluded that a more personal tone of voice in crisis communication is more efficient for consumers that are not familiar with the organization, because it stimulates an emotional connection. On the other hand, consumers who were familiar with the organization prior to the crisis, wish for the communication to be both personal and corporate – the right amount of personal tone reinforces their relationship to the organization, while a corporate tone of voice should be used to deliver facts about the course of action designed to reduce the negative effects. This is the information they need to communicate rationally with other consumers while defending the brand they support. This explains why participants felt communication should have been more personal – they needed to connect emotionally because this delivery service provider does not operate in their country. Therefore, they are not really familiar with the brand and do not use their services, and so there is no reason for them to need rational information they could use for defense.

Social media provides emotional support during a crisis, which is perhaps why participants feel organizations should choose more than one social media platform for crisis communication. Relationships formed on social media go beyond organization-consumer ones and continue on to form consumer to consumer bonds, and sometimes even end up in creating groups of consumers, creating a virtual community.

One of the most crucial aspects of crisis communication is coherence between activities, where one of the major problems is linking internal and external communication efforts. For crisis communication to be seen as a management task, it should be carried out on different levels – societal level, organizational level and level of messages. The biggest part of an organizational level is internal (crisis) communication management, which can also be seen externally. Consumers agree with Bernstein that communication should occur prior to, during, and post crisis, a task that, according to his crisis management steps, has to be managed internally to be visible externally.

Social media has changed the way consumers communicate, which ultimately changed the way organizations communicate, and finally, operate. Even though social media offers an abundance of opportunities for organizations, such as customer relationship management, evolution in business models, internal communication management and so on, it is not free of risk. Not only has social media become a channel for corporate communication, but it has also become a form of media that connects consumers. Consumers are now able to influence each other's opinions and behavior and social media communication. If not managed properly, it can provoke negative attitudes towards specific organizations. When a crisis occurs in the age of social media, it has a greater reach than it used to have, but so does social media crisis communication. It is a risk, as much as an opportunity.

To minimize the risk, crisis communication needs to be managed. Social media requires a special approach, which means there also needs to be social media crisis communication management. If done properly, it can even improve an organization's reputation. Crisis communication management includes preparation prior to the crisis itself. It also includes proper internal crisis communication, because employees are the best advocates, and when they know what is going on, they are more motivated to solve the problem. Once the internal public (which includes all employee groups, investors, board of directors and more) are aware and informed, the external public should be too. Perhaps there are not enough information at the beginning, but any information is better than none. Crisis communication should be an integrated process that offers brief acknowledgment of the situation at the beginning – something social media channels are excellent for, but also an extensive course of action that is developed in order to minimize negative effects – type of information that should be shared via many different channels. Those first messages should be reassuring and personal, but the more extensive ones require a more professional tone of voice.

Customers also want to be informed after the situation settles down and business returns to a new normal state. Crisis communication management is a course of action prior to, during, and post crisis situation. It combines both internal and external activities, and social media, when properly managed, is a great channel to help reduce negative impacts.