CHALLENGING BLOG POSTS ABOUT AN ORCA

Scrolling through our blog, two recently published posts covering SeaWorld’s crisis communication caught my attention. The post by Jeanette commented on SeaWorld’s overall communication since the broadcasting of the documentary Blackfish, whereas Christine analyzed SeaWorld’s crisis communication after the failed launch of their social media campaign #AskSeaWorld. Read bellow how they relate to each other!

Photo credit: Magnolia Pictures

THE CONTRADICTION

First off, let me say that I enjoyed reading both blog posts.

The thing that jumped right off was that both bloggers discussed the crisis occurring after the release of the documentary Blackfish by means of the situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) by Coombs. But they came to different conclusions due to varying classification of the crisis at hand. Let’s dig into that.

On one hand, Jeanette argued that the presented crisis falls into the accidental cluster (read here to find out about the characteristics of the clusters, p. 168). As a result, minimal crisis responsibility should have been attributed to SeaWorld by the public, what apparently didn’t happen. On the basis of SeaWorld’s escalating crisis and reputational loss, despite minimal prescribed threat, Jeanette critizised SCCT for its poor predictive value.

On the other hand, Christine ascribed the crisis to the preventable cluster, which acknowledges a strong reputational threat and prescribes a rebuilding strategy (p. 172). On the basis of SeaWorld’s response strategy, which is not in line with the one suggested by SCCT, Christine points out that SeaWorld missed out on evaluating its crisis and required response properly and directs her critique to the organization.

I personally agree with Christine that SeaWorld’s crisis should be classified into the intentional cluster as it did not arise due to the killing of a trainer by an orca per se (what could arguably be evaluated as an accident) but rather due to the unethical treatment of their animals, which was revealed by the documentary. Therefore Jeanette’s critique on the SCCT model using this case might have been slightly premature. In the presented case, applying the SCCT model to point out SeaWorld’s failure was the slicker thing to do.

With my argument I don’t want to imply that there is no room for critique on Coombs’ theory. Read about it here (p. 7) and here (p. 210). Nonetheless, it should be presented more carefully.

If you wonder how Coombs himself would classify SeaWorld’s crisis, just ask him! You get the unique chance to do so next Thursday at UvA, find more information about the event here. Don’t miss it!

Photo credit: Graduate School of Communication

Do you want to know why I still think Jeanette’s post is worth reading? Keep on reading.

THE REDEMPTION

One smart argument Jeanette made, is that SeaWorld’s crisis is a great example for the current trend in the field of public relations. Big corporations are no longer the only actors that are able to conduct effective pubic relations. Nowadays (p. 54), it became easier for non-official sources to access news media. Legitimacy displacing the historically important financial resources as currency to access news media, made it easier for non-official sources such as the producers of Blackfish to get heard and spread.

THE CONCLUSION

These two blog posts illustrate how differences in the evaluation of a crisis situation, no matter how small they are, will lead to diverging crisis responses. This initially small mistake may just as well happen to an organization’s crisis manager. The misevaluation will lead to ill conducted crisis communication and possible reputational damage.

 Read more blog posts by this author here and here.

  

ABOUT THIS AUTHOR

VERA SPRING

Vera Spring is a corporate communication graduate student at the University of Amsterdam with a background in banking and psychology. She has a keen interest in public relations practice and the endless possibilities the advent of social media has to offer.