Résoudre ou atténuer le problème en cas de crise ?
Crisis communication theories compared most of the time the efficiency of extreme strategies aiming at solve the issue: deny or apology strategies. However, others middle strategies aiming at soften the crisis have been identified. This communication deals with the compared impact of both of them: an evasion of responsibility strategy (provocation) and a reducing offensiveness strategy (bolstering). The evasion of responsibility is the only one strategy able to challenge deny, and only as far as it may concerns the boycott intent.
|Date of creation:||09 May 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in XXVIIIème congrès international de l'Association Française du Marketing, May 2012, Brest, France. 2012|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00685310|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andrew John & Jill Klein, 2003. "The Boycott Puzzle: Consumer Motivations for Purchase Sacrifice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1196-1209, September.
- Sen, Sankar & Gurhan-Canli, Zeynep & Morwitz, Vicki, 2001. " Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on Consumer Boycotts," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 399-417, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00685310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.