关键词不能为空

当前您在: 主页 > 英语 >

sniper毕业论文外文翻译--企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理文献翻译-中英文对照翻译

作者:高考题库网
来源:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao
2021-01-24 14:43
tags:

-

2021年1月24日发(作者:sceneries)
中文
4030


标题:
Corporate brand reputation and brand crisis management
原文:
For some years, the what, why, and how of recognising and
addressing brand crisis

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
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),
Perrier
(benzene
traces),
Tylenol
(deaths
from
tainted
pills),
the US Catholic Church (priest sex abuse), Martha Stewart OmniMedia
(executive misbehaviour), Arthur Andersen (accounting scandals), the
International Olympic Committee (bribery issues), and many others. All
faced
threats
to
their
brands
from
deterioration
in
consumer
and
business
customer approval and from decline in public trust.
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,
marketed
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.
“Can
we
as
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-level
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).
We held (among other points) that 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
responsibility
of
the
CEO
and
company-wide managers.
Sources of reputational trouble
Let me offer an anatomy of the kinds of reasons brands can be in
reputational
crisis,
how
to
know
that
the
situation
is
serious,
and
what

1



16



steps companies can try to take to prevent or if necessary to overcome
such crises.
Reputational
troubles
can
come
in
many
forms,
from
a
wide
variety
of
causes and 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 facility 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, the accounting scandal that eventually ruined the once-respectable
accounting
firm
of
Arthur
Andersen,
or
the
bribery
scandal
over
selection
of
host
cities
that
tarnished
the
reputation
of
the
International
Olympic
Committee.
Some
of
the
protest
or
concern
comes
from
advocacy
groups
with
a
cause,
some
from
disaffected
consumers/customers,
some
from
governmental/regulatory entities, and some from the general public.
Organisations
must
recognise
the
“what”
of
the
issue
generating
the
reputational threats, as well as “who”
the involved public(s) is/are.
Here
is
a
categorisation
of
different
causes
of
corporate
brand
crises,
with some examples and some brief explanations:
1. Product failure

Tylenol, Perrier, Firestone (tires implicated
as
the
cause
of
many
deaths
in
car
accidents),
the
Chernobyl
nuclear
plant
disaster, Intel's Pentium chip (flawed calculations), Peanut Corp. of
America (salmonella).
2.
Social
responsibility
gap


Nike
(non-US
labour
and
questionable
working conditions).
3.
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
fraud
and
bribery),
Hewlett-Packard
(Chairman
indicted
for
spying
on
board
members
via
questionable
investigative
means),
IOC/SLOC
(scandals
regarding
bid
cities).
4.
Executive
misbehaviour


Martha
Stewart,
Dennis
Kozlowski
(Tyco).
5.
Poor
business
results


Polaroid
(failure
to
adapt
technologically), Circuit City (giant retailer which let go many of its
most knowledgeable store staff), and many others particularly in 2008.

2



16



6.
Spokesperson
misbehaviour
and
controversy


Kobe
Bryant
(star
NBA
athlete and endorser of brands who was accused of rape).
7. Death of symbol of company

Wendy's (fast food chain) founder
and TV spokesperson Dave Thomas, the “face of the brand”.

8. Loss of public support

Louis XVI of France (guillotined and
monarchy fell), Edward VIII of England (forced to abdicate the British
throne);
both
lost
their
ability
to
be
seen
by
the
ir
people
as
“a
symbol
of
nationhood,”
central
to
the
“monarchic
corporate
brand”
(Balmer
et
al., 2006).
9.
Controversial
ownership


Venezuela
and
CITGO
in
the
USA
(vigorously anti-US Venezuelan president).
Assessing the seriousness of the situation
What
made
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'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 be overcome, albeit still troublesome.
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 reputation:
1. The brand elements:
o
Brand's
marketplace
situation,
e.g.
market
share
or
corporate
favourability (prior to crisis). The weaker the situation, the more
dangerous the problem.
o
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 of athletic
competition” below).

o Essence of the brand's meaning (see examples below).
2. The crisis situation:

3



16



o Seriousness of situation at outset. If the problem prospectively
affects
many
consumers
or
some
severely,
e.g.
salmonella
in
food
leading
to deaths, the seriousness is higher.
o
Its
threat
to
brand's
position/meaning
(see
text
examples
in
“consequences” below).

3. Company initiatives:
o
Impact
on
brand
and
problem
situation
of
company
behaviour/actions,
especially
communications;
this
can
be
examined
at
the
planning
stage
as
“likely” impact.

4. Results (after initiatives and/or passage of time):
o
Effectiveness
of
initiatives
in
terms
of
recovery/relaunch,
restoring brand meaning, and favourability or market share. Action in
brand
reputational
crises
What
can
and
should
companies/organisations
do
when threatened by brand crises? Where does communications fit in? My
principal recommendation relates to situations of “bad news about the
company and the news is really true”.

In
the
face
of
crisis,
especially
when
it
is
rooted
in
a
problem
that
is
or
will
become
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 initiative with credible communications. These are the best
(but still bumpy) roads to possible brand rehabilitation or rescue..
Communications
alone
cannot
do
the
job
Substance


i.e.
behaviour


is
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
“remindercampaign”,
especially
if
the
underlying
problem/allegation
is
not widely known by relevant publics.
Credible
communications
were
an
issue
for
Wal-mart
in
its
early
2005
corporate
communications
campaign
“Wal
-
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
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
were
trying
to
organise
a
union
and
when
the
company
was
being
sued
(again
with
substantial
media
coverage)
for
discrimination
against
women

4



16



employees. In my view the company effort at communications and this
specific message/theme were not likely to be effective.
Sometimes even any communications 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).
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 the ownership linkage, CITGO decided to
undertake
a
communications
campaign,
“CITGO
sets
the
record
straight”,
emphasizing
the
company's
corporate
good
citizenship
and
role
as
a
major
US
employer.
Soon
thereafter
the
company
returned
to
its
ongoing
image-building
campaign.
Some
experts
agreed
with
the
effort;
some
thought
the
response
communications
should
have
continued,
and
some
said
non-advertising communications should have been used. However, others
argued that the campaign fueled more public awareness of the underlying
problem, and should not have been undertaken (New York Times, November
1,
2006).
The
situation
subsequently
settled
down
as
Americans
looked
at
gasoline as a product, rather than at its ownership.
As I have suggested, forthright corporate action often is the most
sensible
route.
Merck,
the
third-largest
US
pharmaceutical
manufacturer,
suffered an attack on its reputation because of its actions regarding
Vioxx, a pain medication. It was revealedthat several years before the
company withdrew Vioxx (2004), its internal documents raised questions
about
risks
of
strokes
and
heart
attacks
associated
with
the
drug.
Obviously this was
a serious situation for the company's
reputation
especially since the company was defending thousands of lawsuits over
injuries and deaths, claimed by patients or surviving family members to
be
attributable
to
the
drug.
Three
years
after
the
withdrawal,
having
won
many
but
having
lost
some
of
the
cases,
Merck
made
a
$$4.85
billion
settlement
on
some
45,000
cases
(Boston
Globe,
November
9,
2007)
Merck's
action was expensive, but allowed the firm to move on without a huge
residual financial cloud. Merck's behaviour helped address a serious
threat.
An
unusual
corporate
action
in
the
face
of
criticism
was
taken
by
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
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).

5



16



If the organisation 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 credibility. 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.
Later,
despite
considerable
internal
engineering
investigation,
Audi was
generally
considered
never
able
to
pinpoint
the
actual
cause
of
the
problem.
It
took
new
engineering
(e.g.
automatic
gearshift
locks
now
widely
employed
in
the
industry)
and
the
passage
of
several
years
of
much
lower
sales
for
the
brand
(whose
name
is on all models) to mount a comeback.
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
actually
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
canbe
helpful
to
the
corporate
cause
if
the
information
is
supported
by
external
credible
research,
such
as “voted best company to work for”. This of course puts the onus on
an organisation to maintain the distinction. In the second case (“good
news
is
actually
false”),
a
corporation
needs
to
fix
the
reality
quic
kly
(especially
if
on
a
relevant
reputational
dimension
such
as
a
safety
issue)
and hope it can keep a low profile until the situation is remedied.
As part of an organisational planning exercise, one might ask these
questions about the organisation's brand:
1.
What
do
you
think
is
the
essence
of
your
corporate
brand's
meaning
to consumers, to the trade, to other key stakeholders?
2. What could cause your brand to undergo a brand crisis?
3.
How
seriously
would
this
affect
the
brand's
reputation?
How?
Why?
Lessons learned
From
my
experiences
and
study
of
many
crisis
situations,
let
me
offer
four lessons in very abbreviated form:
1.
Let
us
start
with
a
look
in
the
mirror.
Understand
your
organisation's
identity as others
see it


not 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 the company under different

6



16



scenarios of trouble

, e.g. a strike, an environmental problem, etc.
In short, understand the organisation's brand essence and what could
seriously threaten it.
2.
Potential
reputational
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 defending against.
3.
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
a
brand
in
crisis.
They
may
restore
trust,
although
that
is
not
guaranteed.
The
most
important
actions
in
areputational
crisis,
however,
can
be
the
ones
taken
over
time
to
build
a
“reputational
reservoir”,
a
st
rong
foundation
for
the
corporate
reputation.
In
some
crises,
a
company
can
draw
down
on
that
reservoir.
4.
Remember
that
because
a
corporate
brand
is
as
wide
as
the
organisation, the CEO is the ultimate
guardian of the corporation's
reputation.
出处:
Stephen
A.
Greyser.
Corporate
brand
reputation
and
brand
crisis
management
[J] Management Decision .2009.47(4), PP. 590-602
标题:企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理

译文:
这些年来,
什么是品牌危机以及如何认识和处理品牌危机,
特别是企业 或组织的品牌危机,
是我研究的重点。
众多公司和非营利
机构提供了面临严重声

誉危机时危机公关的临床经验。近几十年来
的例子包括埃克森(瓦尔迪兹石油泄漏事件), 联合碳化物(博帕尔
爆炸),佩里耶(苯痕迹),泰诺(毒丸从死亡),

美国天主教 教
会(牧师性虐待),玛莎斯图尔特
OmniMedia
(行政不当行为),安
达信(会计丑闻),国际奥林匹克委员会(贿赂问题)等等。他们的

7



16



品牌

已经受到了威胁,表现在消费者和企业客户认同度的下降和公
众的信任度的下降。
< br>一些产品的品牌根深蒂固(如泰诺),并都具有企业品牌的影响
力,在公司层面上努力地进行挽救 企业品牌(如泰诺强生公司,由强
生公司麦克尼尔实验室的单位销售)。

因此,这些 事件向企业提供
一个了解品牌方面知识的丰富来源。
它们说明了企业营销的关键方面
的 内容。

“我们可以作为一个机构,
积极地维持顾客及其他利益相关群体
的双 边利益和社区关系是有意义的吗?”。
这是由约翰和我用我们的
一套综合的治疗方法在一定制度 水平上提出的关于企业组织的营销
导向的核心问题。(巴尔默和
Greyser
2006
年)。

我们认为的企业营销的确需要一个董事会和首席执行官的关注。
在反思企业形象和品牌信誉危机的时候,
就应该认识到全公司定位的
重要性及行政总裁 和公司级管理人员的责任。

声誉麻烦的来源

让我来提供各种品牌声誉危机 的产生原因的解析,
如何知道情况
的严重性,以及公司可以尝试什么步骤以防止和克服这种危机 。


8



16


-


-


-


-


-


-


-


-



本文更新与2021-01-24 14:43,由作者提供,不代表本网站立场,转载请注明出处:https://www.bjmy2z.cn/gaokao/561122.html

毕业论文外文翻译--企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理文献翻译-中英文对照翻译的相关文章

毕业论文外文翻译--企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理文献翻译-中英文对照翻译随机文章