The following was originally submitted as a homework assignment:
Please post this week’s assignment here for discussion. You should comment on at least two other students. I am looking for feedback on constructive criticism, questions, and general comments on their work.
Consider the Rescola story, what should offices in skyscrapers and large buildings do other than plan for evacuations? Imagine the employees who objected to the training: what would be persuasive messages to them? The 1993 attack was considered a prodrome by Rescola. Why didn’t others see it?
In a crisis situation, using the image restoration theory, how could an organization determine which publics should receive which messages? Why would you send different messages to different publics?
There isn’t much more that any office, organization, or individual can do than plan for an evacuation of the structure in an event which may cause collapse or other significant damage; those involved, however, have varying decisions to make in regard to the extent to which they make their plans. In the example given with Team Rescola and the preparations of another terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, we can see how Morgan Stanley had planned for such a scenario. Rescola had gone so far as to conduct an outside, in-air evaluation of the building, pondering the possibilities of a flight-related attack—how many other businesses went to this extreme? Security staff for the WTC had issued the recommendation for everyone to stay by/return to their respective tower; Rescola continued to clear his firm’s personnel out of the building. These employees had also experienced evacuation drills through Rescola’s planning.
It would be difficult to imagine having to find creative ways of persuading or pressuring employees into evacuation training today—to motivate a reluctant employee, all a safety coordinator would have to utter is “9/11.” Rescola, however, would have likely found his task to be a bit more difficult as his theories of another attack were imaginative at the time and based on a bombing that took place underground. An effective argument could be made, however, through clever descriptiveness in print or verbal communication and visual presentation—backing these claims with “research” and including a personal connection to the individuals. Proper “marketing” of the possibilities should convince the naysayers and those with the Titanic—unsinkable—mentality.
To discover which segment of the public needs addressing an organization needs to monitor public feedback. Obviously, the organization would want to discover which section or class is speaking the loudest and with the most negative tones. In finding this section of the audience, the organization can then tailor any statement or fashion new images that address and/or rectify these concerns. It is possible for the organization to feed this information and image to other classes, increasing the positive image that has already been carried forth; consequently, it is possible for these statements or changes to have the reverse effect in the favoring camps—there also exists the possibility of making a public statement/commitment and having that information reach an audience that was not even knowledgeable that an issue existed in the first place.
It is imperative for any organization to know their markets and to know which area needs addressing, and whether or not the attention should only be given to a certain sect; otherwise the organization could experience troubles similar to Jack-in-the-Box, where an entire nation is made aware of food poisoning, when the restaurant only served certain markets—and only a small portion of a market was affected.
One thought on “Marketing crises…”