Journal of Marketing Management

Vol. 27, Nos. 56, May 2011, 530546

Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on

brand trust
Natalia Yannopoulou, Nottingham University Business School, UK
Epaminondas Koronis, Reputation Lab Research & Consulting Ltd.,
Greece
Richard Elliott, University of Bath, UK

Abstract This paper explores the ways in which consumers brand trust during a
brand crisis is affected through direct experience versus when it is amplified
through mass media. By using case-study methodology, our findings reveal that
generalised public images of a product crisis initiate a public perception of risk,
which provides more negative effects on brand trust than the actual consumers
experience does. We introduce the media as a third partner influencing the trust
relationship between consumers and brands, and offer suggestions for restoring
and preserving customers brand trust.

Keywords brand trust; perceptions of risk; media; crises; product recall; food sector

Introduction

No organisation or brand can avoid crises for long. As Fink (1986) argued, crises in
organisations are misfortunate events waiting to happen. Regester and Larkin (2005),
even though they acknowledge the occurrence of sudden crises, conceive that many
crises are seen as smouldering phenomena directly associated with problems and risks
eventually bursting into critical incidents. Crises initiate negative publicity and
produce symbolic effects for the organisation. In fact, while the traditional
crisis-management literature approached crises as events and accidents (e.g. Fink,
1986; Mitroff, Shrivastava, & Udwadia, 1987), later theorists added the notion of
crises as also being communication-based phenomena in that they are associated with
the projection of negative images in a public setting and initiate a social process of risk
construction and dissemination (Coombs, 1999).
Product-related crises, which often dominate the public and media space, are seen as
discrete, well-publicised incidents in which products are found to be defective or
dangerous (Siomkos & Kurzbard, 1994). Defective products, design errors,
manufacturing faults, product recalls, and even marketing mistakes might initiate a
brand crisis, meaning the construction and dissemination of problematic brand images
to a wide audience, which as put forward by a number of researchers generates profound
consequences for brand equity and trust in brands (Dawar & Pillutla, 2000). The cases of

ISSN 0267-257X print/ISSN 1472-1376 online

# 2011 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
DOI:10.1080/0267257X.2010.498141
http://www.informaworld.com
 Yannopoulou et al. Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust 531

Firestones product recall in 2000 and the crises of Nike and Gap in the early 1990s are
just some of the well-known and trusted brands that have attracted negative attention and
been subjected to social pressure for their practices, which as a consequence influenced
their consumers brand trust.
Moreover, the increasing complexity of products, in combination with customers
nowadays being more demanding, make product-related crises even more frequent
(Birch, 1994; Patterson, 1993) and, at the same time, of particular importance to
consumer behaviour. This is mainly due to the implications for brand equity and
consumers purchase intentions, as a companys handling of a crisis has been ranked
the third most important purchase influence in a study by Porter/Novelli, a
Chicago-based PR firm (Marketing News, 1995).
Additionally, brand trust is very delicate, as it is based on consumers beliefs. This
makes brand trust vulnerable to large and sudden shifts due to factors outside of the
managements control, such as consumers exposure to new information mainly
through the media. Its fragility during a brand crisis has not been studied adequately
(Dawar & Pillutla, 2000), while more attention has been given to corporate reputation
and trust than individual brand effect. Therefore the aim of this paper is to explore
how consumers brand trust during a brand crisis is affected when directly experienced
compared to when it is been projected through mass media.
More specifically, in this paper, we explore consumers perceptions of risk, as
authentic trust in brands requires conditions of high perceived risk in order to
develop (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Canning & Hanmer-Lloyd, 2007; Doney
& Canon, 1997; Elliott & Yannopoulou, 2007), and the affect they have on brand
trust in the case of a crisis. Our particular interest lies in the fact that perceptions of risk
are increasingly mediated by the mass media. We are therefore interested in exploring
the differences in risk perception and brand trust when investigated through both the
private (customers direct experience) and the public sphere (mass media coverage).1
Our research context is a product crisis and the recall of a popular yogurt brand, where
we investigate consumers reactions to the actual experience with the defective product,
as well as the role of the mass media in the projection and perception of the crisis.
We begin by looking into the concept of brand trust and its conceptual link with risk.
We then refer to the social amplification of risk and the role of the mass media in affecting
peoples perceptions of risk. Next, we describe the case study and methods we selected in
order to investigate how brand crises affect brand trust, and we present our findings based
on the interpretive themes that emerged during the data analysis. Lastly, we discuss our
main findings with regards to the implications they have for both theory and practice, and
offer suggestions for preserving long-term trusting customer relationships.

Conceptual foundations

Brand trust and risk

The ultimate goal of marketing is to generate an intense bond between the consumer
and the brand, and the main ingredient of this bond is trust (Hiscock, 2001). This
could be because trust is viewed as the cornerstone and one of the most desired

1
Public sphere refers first of all to a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion
can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens . . . In a large public body, this kind of communication
requires specific means for transmitting information and influencing those who receive it. Today, newspapers
and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere (p. 73). In contrast, private sphere
refers to anything that is not public, such as domestic or individual (Habernas 2006).
532 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

qualities in a relationship, while it is the most important attribute a brand can own
(Delgado-Ballester, Munuera-Aleman, & Yagiie-Guillent, 2003). Previous research
suggests that brand trust both increases brand loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook,
2001; Jevons & Gabbott, 2000; Moore & Sekhon, 2005) and leads to commitment
in business-to-business situations (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). However, trust is still at
the early stages of understanding within marketing and consumer research, in contrast
to other disciplines and research traditions, such as psychology, sociology, and
philosophy. Even though it seems that this concept has recently attracted
researchers increasing interest, there are very few empirical studies that focus
principally on trust, while findings of relevant works are often contradictory,
especially with regards to its determinants and antecedents (Sichtmann, 2007), as
well as its consideration within different marketing contexts.
Therefore trust continues to represent an elusive concept. A wide variety of
conceptualisations have resulted in a confusing potpourri of definitions applied to a
host of units and level of analysis (Shapiro, 1987). For Deutsch (1973), trust is a
persons willingness to be dependent on another party in the belief that the party will
not intentionally disappoint them, while Gulati (1995) defines trust as a type of
expectation that alleviates the fear that ones partner will act opportunistically.
Alternatively, trust is placed in people (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995) and can
be described as a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability
based on positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another (Rousseau
Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998, p. 396).
Our overall approach to trust follows Luhmanns (1979) sociological theory of
trust, which views trust as a function of experience and high perceived risk.
On the one hand, trust requires a familiar world in order to be developed, as it needs
history as a reliable background (McAllister, 1995). Thus within a marketing context,
it can be inferred that consumers frequent exposure and interaction with a brand will
lead to increased brand knowledge, which in turn will contribute to the development
of brand trust. On the other hand, trust requires situations of high perceived risk in
order to become apparent (Luhmann, 1979). Trust only becomes operational when the
trusting parties are vulnerable; the parties have to participate in risk-taking behaviour
for this vulnerability to exist (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Canning & Hanmer-Lloyd,
2007; Doney & Canon, 1997; Giddens, 1991; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). This is the
basis of the psychosocial model of trust proposed by Elliott and Yannopoulou (2007)
where authentic trust in brands can only be developed in conditions of high perceived
risk.
Some research in marketing has focused on the strategies developed by consumers to
reduce risks by using well-known brands (Ring, Schriber, & Horton, 1980), as branding
provides guarantees about quality and security (D. Aaker, 1991), and trust is seen as a
vital component for the brand to build a lasting relationship with consumers. Thus a
strong brand is a safe place for consumers because it enables them to visualise and
understand the offer better, and avoid the uncertainty and perceived risk associated with
buying and consuming an unknown product.

Social amplification of risk

Perception of risk is a rather complex social phenomenon given the multimodality of
individuals perceptions and the multiplicity of factors associated with trust decisions.
Following the seminal work of Kahneman and Tversky (1979), the social sciences
have moved towards more psychological and communicational views on risk
 Yannopoulou et al. Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust 533

(J.X. Kasperson, Kasperson, Pidgeon, & Slovic, 2003). Among them, the Social
Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) is one of the most prominent in that it
captures the complexity of risk perception and communication within a holistic model.
SARF was conceived in the late 1980s as a conceptual framework to select, order,
and classify social phenomena and to provide a perspective on risk communication. It
is an analytic framework for examining the processes of societal processing of risk
signals (Pidgeon, Henwood, & Maguire, 1999), but also a theoretical approach on
individuals perceptions of risk and fear (Breakwell & Barnett, 2003). In introducing
the SARF, R. Kasperson et al. (1988) approached risk as resulting from the direct
experience of risk combined with indirect or secondary experience, which relies on the
reception and analysis of information. In this respect, volume, conflict, the
dramatisation, and the symbolic connotations associated with the communicated
event become the ground for the amplification of risk and lead to the construction
of disproportionate levels of perceived fear.
Moreover, the SARF approach relies on the assumption that risk events will be
largely irrelevant or localised in their impact unless human beings observe and
communicate them to others (J.X. Kasperson et al., 2003, p. 15; Luhmann, 1979;
Slovic, 2000). The experience of risk is not only physical or technical, but also based
on interpretations of risk that are formulated by particular agents, which were
identified as amplification stations, with one of them being the mass media. Within
the SARF, the mass media is presented as an important transmitter of information, a
potential amplification station, which increases the volume of information about the
event and shapes perceptions of risk. According to Susarla (2003), this is mainly
because of the medias ability to set the public agenda and thus direct the focus of
individuals towards certain subjects and events.

Mass media
In the event of a brand crisis, the role of the mass media in the construction of negative
publicity is crucial. In a mediated society (Thompson, 1995), the construction of
meaning and perceptions of risk are mediated by information and communication
networks, which progressively dominate the disembedded social system (Castells,
2000; Gamson, Croteau, Hoynes, & Sasson, 1992; Giddens, 1991; Thompson,
1995). Moreover, individuals need mediated and simplified accounts of reality in
order to understand the world they live in and conceptualise the risks associated
with their lifestyle and decisions (Beck, 1992). In this respect, the communication of
crises is critically influenced by mass media in that it is mainly through them that
consumers are able to grasp knowledge about problems related to the brand and the
characteristics of the crisis. The mass medias role is usually critical towards the brand
or crisis given their tendency to construct dramatised accounts of crises and to amplify
risks and fear as part of the constant effort to gain the media audiences attention
(Altheide & Snow, 1979; McQuail, 2003; Smith, 1995). Under the media logic
(Altheide & Snow, 1979), brand crises are opportunities for the production of
narrative accounts of organisational reality hence the production of negative
publicity for the organisations and the brand.
It seems possible that negative publicity attracts the medias attention, as it chooses
to report bad news more frequently than good news (Dennis & Merrill, 1996). At the
same time, it holds considerable implications for consumers brand perceptions and
buying behaviour, first, because the mass media is regarded as a credible source of
information and as a result is more influential than other marketer-driven
534 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

communications (Bond & Kirshenbaum, 1998), and second, because negative

information, as opposed to positive information, is expected to alter consumers
knowledge of the brand and their trust, as well as their favourability of associations
(Dawar & Pillutla, 2000; Keller, 1993).
Recent studies have challenged the assumption that consumers respond to negative
publicity in a homogeneous manner. They suggest that consumers responses differ
based on factors such as the companys reputation (Siomkos & Kurzbard, 1994), their
prior expectations about a firm affected by a product-harm crisis (Dawar & Pillutla,
2000), the brands personality (J. Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004), or their level of
commitment towards the brand (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000). However,
little attention has been given to differentiating and examining separately how a
consumers trusted relationship with his/her contributing brand partner (Fournier,
1998) is being affected on an individual level, when a consumer experiences the crisis
and is exposed to increased levels of risk, and on a public level, when the crisis is
publicised through the mass media.

Methodology

Our central research questions how brand trust is affected both in the private and
public sphere, as well as the affect of the media on perceptions of risk during crisis were
explored with the use of case-study methodology. We believe that this methodology,
which, as suggested by Dean (2004), has been used in most studies addressing corporate
and brand crises, gives us the opportunity to gain the best possible insight into our
research topic (Yin, 1989). A case study is the recommended methodology when a
holistic, in-depth investigation is needed (Feagin, Orum, & Sjoberg, 1991), as it brings
out the details from the viewpoint of the participants by using multiple sources of data.
Moreover, it gives us the chance to investigate a real-life situation, and as a result
strengthens the emerged findings with real-world anchoring (Yin, 1994). We have
chosen to analyse a unique case of a product recall within the food sector, where
perceptions of risk have previously attracted marketers attention (Chernatony, 1989;
Mai & Ness, 1997; Ryals, Dias, & Berger, 2007). The largest dairy manufacturer in
Greece and a European market leader recently announced the recall of 350,000 units of
its most successful brand of a yogurt product. It was later shown that, for almost a
month, customers had been finding observable traces of mould on the surface of the
yoghurts while the company launched an effort to recall silently the defective batches.
Yet, it was not until a month later that a radio station made the issue public, initiating a
wide media and public scandal, and finally forcing both the authorities and the company
to provide a public apology for hiding the issue and to take immediate corrective action.
This case not only refers to a major real-life brand crisis, but it also provides the
opportunity to study consumer reactions in two phases: first, when they are exposed
to the physical evidence of the problem; and second, when they hear about the crisis
through the mass media. For the purposes of this research, we selected a case-study
methodology, using interpretive techniques in order to create thick descriptions and a
rich understanding of the phenomena under study. The interpretive case-study approach
aims to reflect the structures of meanings created in the particular social environment
(Macpherson, Brooker, & Ainsworth, 2000).
We explored consumers experiences through 22 depth interviews each with an
average duration of one hour, with 11 female and 11 male respondents aged between
27 and 55 years, from the three biggest urban areas of Greece: Athens, Thessaloniki,
 Yannopoulou et al. Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust 535

and Patras. Depth interviewing is a flexible, dynamic method and refers to repeated
face to face encounters between the researcher and informants directed towards
understanding informants perspectives on their lives, experiences, or situations as
expressed in their own words (Taylor & Borgan, 1984, p. 77). We employed
the snowball-sampling method to recruit the participants for this study, asking the
interviewees to recommend friends of theirs that might have also purchased the
mouldy yogurt. We rewarded our participants with 15 Euros for their participation.
The purposive sampling criterion (Stake, 2000) was that they should have been heavy
consumers of the brand and that they should have purchased the defective product.
The transcripts of the depth interviews were coded, following axial and selective
coding (Carson, Gilmore, & Gronhaug, 2001), and analysed using the interpretive
thematic analysis technique, where, through pattern recognition, we attempted to
construct a representation of meanings as recurring themes producing an
interpretation of interpretations (Spiggle, 1994).
Furthermore, we conducted content analysis (Krippendorff, 2003) of the media
material related to the case, and analysed the companys press releases and the
documents from the authorities. More specifically, the data analysed were:
143 articles, which were selected from the 11 national daily political Greek
newspapers2 of the highest circulation; and the television spots that addressed the
crisis, which were collected from the five most popular state channels and major
national networks3 resulting in 531 minutes of television time, including one full
report. Although a crisis does not disappear from the media immediately after its
resolution, we chose to focus on the media texts for the period of intensive exposure,
namely those published within the two weeks following the crisis exposure (March
31April 14 2005). Textual analysis of the vocabulary using relevant software tools
(WordStatTM) allowed us to identify thematic and discursive patterns. Lastly, we
conducted three additional depth interviews for triangulation purposes (Silverman,
1993).

Findings

Direct experience versus media exposure

Crisis phase 1 Individual domain
Our findings reveal that there is a noticeable difference in risk perception and brand
trust when investigated through the private and public domains. Consumers who
purchased the defective product (identified mould on the yoghurts surface) initially
seemed to have a moderate reaction to it. They avoided repurchasing the brand in the
short term, but it did not seem to affect their perception of the brand and their
brand trust:
Anna (27 years old): When I saw the mould in the yogurt, I was kind of puzzled, and
did not know what was going on exactly. I looked at the expiration date, because I
thought I had purchased a product way outside its expiry date. I actually felt kind of
silly for not checking before. Now that I think about it, I never seem to do that. I just
see the product I want and with no second thought I put it in my basket. I dont even

2
TA NEA, ELEFTHEROTYPIA, TO VIMA, KATHIMERINI, ELEFTHEROS TYPOS, APOGEYMATINI,
ADESMEYTOS TYPOS, ETHNOS, ESPRESSO, RIZOSPASTIS, AVRIANI.
3
State channels: ET1, NET; major national networks: ANT1, MEGA, ALPHA.
536 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

take a real look at it. I remember saying to myself that from now on, I should be
more careful and spend a couple more minutes when going shopping to the
supermarket and actually select the products I want, all kinds of them. I mean, I
obviously do it for fruits, vegetables, meat, and fish, but from now on I should be
doing it for all kinds of products. Anyway, the thing was that the yogurt had not
exceeded its expiration date, so it should have been fine. It would not make sense
to me, but I didnt make a big thing of it. I just threw it away and that was that.
I: Did you go back to get another one?
Anna: No, I could not be bothered. Besides just by the look of it, I lost the desire to
have a yogurt after all. It wasnt until about three days that I got another one.
I: What did you think about the brand?
Anna: Well, first of all, it is my favourite yogurt brand. I always have it, for years
now, and I quite like it. I have tried others from time to time, but never found
another brand that I like as much, so I always end up buying this one. So this
incident did not really matter. I did not even associate it with the brand. I figured it
was a one-time thing, an unfortunate incident, nothing more.
I: So it did not change your perception of the brand?
Anna: Not at all, I continued to like and trust the brand.

Similar reactions were observed by all of our participants, as also seen by the following
informant:

Panos (36 years old): I do remember finding the mould. I did not pay that much
attention. It is not like it is the end of the world.
I: Did it bother you?
Panos: Well, of course it did, but what can you do?
I: How did it make you feel?
Panos: I was kind of annoyed, because I realised it when I was about to eat some of
it and that meant that I would have to find something else to eat, but no major
reactions.
I: Did you think of it as something potential harmful for your health?
Panos: I did not eat it, of course, but did not think twice about it.
I: What did you think about the brand?
Panos: Nothing really, I did not associate it.
I: Did you continue to trust the brand?
Panos: Oh, yes. I mean Ive been buying this yogurt for so long, I like it a lot. And
the company has been around for many years; it is a big player in the market and
totally reliable.

Based on our analysis, we identified a patterned reaction of isolation, in that consumers

tended to avoid evaluating the risks and considered the problem as incidental,
coincidental, and accidental. Moreover, it is evident, based on our participants
responses, that their reluctance to discuss the issue and analyse the possible effects and
consequences derived from their initial assumption that the issue is not important, in
contrast to potentially considering it as an uncomfortable incident to talk about. In other
words, consumers seemed to have been implicated in a spiral of silence (Noelle-
Neumann, 1974, 1993) by participating in a progressive silencing of the issue and by
legitimising the actual problem as a logical and normal side effect of the brand.
Moreover, consumers expressed increased levels of trust and were willing to
delegate the blame to the retailers or even to themselves. This is an example of the
accommodation, tolerance, and attribution bias hypothesised to result from a strong
 Yannopoulou et al. Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust 537

consumerbrand relationship, as suggested by Fournier (1998). In other words, the

actual crisis, consisting of the distribution of a large quantity of problematic products,
created relatively few symbolic effects. Consumers perceptions of low risk were solely
dependent on the individuals assumptions about the problem. The reaction of
isolation was enhanced by the reluctance of consumers to demand more information
about the problem. As one of the interviewees stated:
Loukas (30 years old): For me, getting rid of the problem was simply done by
getting rid of the yoghurt.

Additionally, our participants reaction within the individual domain could be further
explained with reference to the halo effect. The halo effect within marketing has been
viewed as a cognitive process, in which the overall evaluation of a brand influences
ones response to other attributes, or the impression of one attribute shapes the
impression of another independent attribute (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), which in
turn permits researchers to make predictions about the influence of experience-
based attributes on brand evaluations (Long-Tolbert, Till, & Swaminathan, 2006). In
this case, it is evident that previous experiences and accumulated brand trust lead to an
immediate reluctance of consumers to raise concerns and question the quality and
reliability of the product.

Crisis phase 2: Public domain

The crisis entered a new phase when the issue attracted media attention, first on a
radio station and, for the following days, in the mass media, both press and television.
An analysis of the media content showed that the crisis provided headline news for
four days and remained in the newspaper pages for over a week, attracting negative
publicity and the audiences attention. During the first six days in particular, the
exposure was intensive and triggered several secondary issues including a political
debate on the safety of food products and on the efficacy of the Regulatory Authorities
in the matter.
The content analysis of the mass-media material revealed the tendency of
journalists to construct images of risk and fear in attracting the public interest and
exploring the dimensions of the crisis. For instance, textual analysis indicated that in
83% of the articles, there was a high rate of risk-based vocabulary. Moreover, study of
television best shows how nominalisations worked towards the personalisation of the
brand, while it is interesting that mass media presented the problem as general and
enduring, in using the present tense in their narrations. Our analysis also revealed a
media tendency to present the crisis as the fall of the giant by mainly projecting the
brand as taking a top-to-bottom direction. It is worth stating that the media accounts
of the crisis adopted the view of the risk-taking consumer, projecting the brand as
contaminated, of unknown consequences, and the event as mysterious, while the
whole corporate story was visualised as a plot and a conspiracy.
When consumers learnt about the crisis from the media, they reshaped their ideas
on the incident and consequentially their brand perception and trust changed. Trust is
unstable by its nature, and Luhmann (1979) maintains that the secure expectations
that have been developed when one trusts in most cases collapse at the first
disappointment, and as a result the relationship changes as trust decreases or is
eliminated. In our case though, consumers brand trust survived the first phase of
the crisis, and it was not until the crisis became public that they started questioning
their brand trust and became uncertain and angry towards the brand. They actually
538 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

developed a fear reaction, as they realised that their own experience was not an
isolated incident, and most importantly that there were significant risks involved, as
well as responsible parties.
Anna (27 years old): I remember when I first heard it on the news, I kind of froze.
They were saying that they had to recall all these yogurts, it seemed serious. And
then you had all these experts talking about it, saying how harmful it is for our
health, it made me re-evaluate the whole thing.
Zoe (42 years old): When I heard it on the news, I panicked. I started thinking how
dangerous it actually was and how the company and the state allowed it to
happen. How they let all these default products actually reach the consumer.
And on top of that, it took them so long to let us know. Shame on them. How could I
continue to trust this company? No way.
From the above, it becomes evident that consumers have been heavily influenced by
the immediate mass-media reaction, which tended to over-dramatise the incident and
exaggerate the effects of the mould on human health.
Iliana (28 years old): You ask me if I was influenced by the media? I would ask how
anybody could not be influenced. Journalists kept saying that the company failed
to protect us, did not announce the recall, and that bad yoghurts might still be in
our houses.
More importantly, consumers seemed to rely on the medias views on the issue, and as
a result interpreted the associated risks through media discourse rather than rationally
examining aspects of technical discourses. In this respect, a TV commentators
punchline, can we trust this? [the brand] became the dominant perception of the
case. At this phase, the media made consumers re-evaluate the risks involved, and
challenged their brand trust.
Takis (53 years old): It takes some time to forget that all these products have
reached the shelves of the supermarkets and even more time to forgive the
company for not being clear about this from the very first minute.

Brand crisis and industry crisis

Another noticeable observation from the data analysis was that participants seemed to
re-evaluate their overall consumer behaviour towards food.
Petros (48 years old): You had the news and quite a few talk shows concerned with
this issue, and they would invite experts to talk about it; this alerted me. It actually
made me think of my approach to food in general. I take so many things for
granted, while there are so many risks associated with food especially. Until
then, I thought that buying a reliable product from a good supermarket was
enough; it obviously was not. This incident made me reassess the way I buy
food products. I also have a certain responsibility to check the condition of the
products I am buying; after all there are considerable risks involved. I mean, we
are talking about our health; what is more important, or worth paying more
attention to, than that?
Maria (32 years old): It made me think, if I cannot ensure the quality of the food
products that I, myself, am buying, imagine what happens when we are eating out
at a restaurant, or buying something already made. Imagine the risks involved
there. I dont even want to think about it. It is frightening.
 Yannopoulou et al. Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust 539

Table 1 Consumers reactions to a brand crisis through different phases.

Before media exposure After media exposure

Consumers reaction Isolation of incident
Silencing of problem
Risk evaluation Normalisation of risk
Brand trust Unaffected
Attention Discussion
Amplification of risk
Generalisation of
risks Expansion of
risk (to industry)
Decreased

It can therefore be inferred that this particular brand crisis affected the respondents
perception with regards to the whole industry. This observation can be partially
explained by the fact that the media expand an issue into various associated
discourses in order to keep it alive, and as a consequence attempt to explore and
include any related interesting themes. Consumers seemed to follow such thematic
expansion, thus internalising the issue as a political scandal, a governments failure,
but also as an incident related to the overall risk in the food industry. In addition and as
recently studied by Dahlen and Lange (2006), a brand crisis affects competing brands
and the entire product category, and might actually result in changes of practice for the
entire industry. Thus their findings suggest that a brand is not only in the hands of
its consumers and the media who determine its reputation, but also in the hands of its
competitors. In Table 1, we summarise our findings on consumers reactions to the
brand crisis in each phase.

Discussion

Our analysis reveals that generalised public images of a product crisis initiate a public
perception of risk, which provides more negative effects on brand trust than the actual
consumers experience does. Consumers brand trust survived the first phase of the
crisis discussed, and it was not until the crisis became public that participants started
questioning their brand trust and became uncertain and angry towards the
brand. Hence, the publicity surrounding the crisis triggered a gradual collapse of the
brand trust. Our findings indicate, then, that customers are negatively influenced by
public brand crises in that they tend to construct negative mental associations and
formulate negative memories of the crisis event. While personally experienced
problems (in our case the observation of mould) tend to be underestimated by
consumers, thus leading to a short-term brand detachment, the projection of the
crisis in the mass media and the intensive exposure created more considerable
consequences for consumers brand trust. When the crisis remains in the private
sphere, consumers isolate and normalise the problem, but once it enters the media
sphere, the problem is generalised and the risk is amplified (Slovic, 2000). When a
crisis reaches the mass media, consumers tend to accept that the problem is general,
important, and that particular risks are associated with the brand. As a consequence
their brand perceptions seem to change considerably when exposed to the media
narrative accounts of the crisis and their trust has been affected.
Trust is indeed unstable by its nature and can be easily betrayed. As Garfinkel (1967)
demonstrated in a series of experiments, when trust is betrayed, people become
uncomfortable, bewildered, and angry. Our research throws light on a different
540 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

aspect of brand-trust detachment, which has been analysed by theorists of the

post-industrial society. They argue that in modern society, which relies on networks
(Castells, 2000) and the development of tokens (Giddens, 1990), meanings and reality
are primarily media constructed (Gamson et al., 1992), and evaluations of risk depend
heavily on processes of mass communication. Beck (1992) argues that modern citizens
reactions to risk fundamentally relies on communicated information and socially
legitimised perceptions of risk, as one no longer ascends merely from personal
experience to general judgments, but rather general knowledge devoid of personal
experience becomes the central determinant of personal experience (p. 72). This is
precisely what is noted by this study in identifying consumers reactions to a brand
crisis as a process mediated and dependent on information provided by the mass media
at the expense of personal judgment and evaluations of risk. Adding to the latter, none
of our participants mentioned sharing or discussing their experience of the defective
product with family, friends, or colleagues during the first phase. We further explored
the potential use of word of mouth and informal communication between consumers
in our last three interviews, which we conducted for triangulation purposes.
Participants maintained that they did not discuss the incident mainly due to the fact
that the brand referred to a low-involvement and low-cost disposable product. As a
result, in this case, the mass media became consumers main reliable source of
information, and thus the basis for the formation of their perceptions of the brand
crisis.
But how do the mass media acquire such power to influence the perceptions of
individuals and influence their views? As Laczniak, DeCarlo, and Ramaswami (2001)
argue, consumers rely heavily on sources of information that are seen as credible,
visible, consistent, and which provide a sustained message. The mass media do indeed
qualify as relatively credible source of information that the majority of consumers have
access to, while consistency and repetition is part of journalistic practice (Thompson,
1995). Media has the power to construct and project strong claims, as well as to set the
social agenda (McQuail, 2003). Moreover, perceptions of risk are mediated by
the mass media, especially given consumers inability to shape a logical view of the
associated risks, thus placing more emphasis on communicated risk than the actual
evaluation of first-hand experiences (Beck, 1992). Individuals have little access to
technical information because it is complex, but also because they do not have the time
or the will to access such information (Tsoukas, 1997). In this respect, dramatised
accounts of the event followed by conceptual analyses and generalisations became
dominant sources of evaluation for consumers, thus leading to the amplification of
fear and the construction of important symbolic effects. While the respondents in this
research maintained a critical perspective towards the mass media and were reluctant
to adopt a nave view of the mass media (in the Habermasian view of media as
institutional watchdogs), they were still willing to internalise media accounts and
base their decisions and trust on what was said by journalists.
Such a stance against the media best explains why our participants tended to
construct generalised perceptions of the crisis and questioned their trust of the
sector and the entire food industry. In constructing stories, journalists tend to search
for different discourses in their effort to maintain the public interest, but also in
amplifying images of fear and risk (Altheide & Snow, 1979; Critcher, 2003). A crisis
in the media is often presented as part of a greater problematic process, and consumers
are adaptive to this approach. Our analysis of the parallel evolution of media discourse
with consumers perceptions best explains the contagious effect of brand crises.
A brand crisis should not be seen as an isolated negative event but rather as an
 Yannopoulou et al. Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust 541

opportunity for the media to expand the crisis discourse across several fields of
analysis. In this case, the yoghurt crisis, when transferred to the mass media, became
a crisis concerning the food industry, the inspection system, government responsibility,
and the social duties of an organisation. The ultimate challenge for the brand is that it
appears that risks can be associated with broader crises and evolve into a milestone and
an historic event, thus becoming stigmatised.
The insights from our research are of value in that they draw attention to the role of
the media during a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust. We therefore suggest that
crises, but especially their projections in the public setting, through the mass media are
essential parts of a brands life and should be studied as such. We also argue that while
brands are primarily symbolic constructions submitted to the dynamics of the
symbolic and communicative games, theory and practice tend to underestimate
the role of mass communication and the mass media in building generalised images
for the public and therefore in distributing symbolic power. A brands symbolic life
may not be seen as separate from these processes of symbolic competition, especially
because consumers brand trust should be seen as closely related to them. Focusing on
brand crises, our research indicates that it is within the public sphere and the processes
of mass communication that a crisis may produce its symbolic effects, and it is essential
for future research and organisations to be aware of such processes.

Implications

Our study underlines the importance of the media in the preservation or betrayal of
brand trust. It is argued that the media constitutes a third party, which influences the
trusted relationship between consumers and brands at a moment that is crucial for
the survival of the relationship. The medias role becomes very closely related to the
handling of the crisis, as it influences how consumers perceive and interpret the crisis,
as well as how, and to whom, consumers allocate responsibility. Such a view presents
new implications and managerial challenges involving additional tasks for brand
management. Thus brand management cannot afford to neglect the communicative
and primarily media aspects of brand crises given that it is on the mass media that the
trust and the viability of a brand depends. In this direction, practitioners and theorists
should consult other fields, which have been traditionally concerned with overcoming
crises and restoring the image of the organisation. While brand management and
consumer research place emphasis on how to build brand trust and retain customers,
other domains of management research (e.g. crisis management, corporate reputation)
are primarily concerned with protecting the established trust and positive image of
brands at times of crises. Their focus lies in the successful communication of brand
crises and the preservation of the desired image by restoring a brands equity, with, as
already seen in selective incidents such as in the cases of Perrier and Tylenol, due to
companies quick and effective responses, brands emerging even stronger after a crisis
(Murray & Shohen, 1992). Hence, the companys response to a crisis appears to be a
decisive determinant of the impact of the crisis on consumers beliefs, which in turn
constitute brand equity and brand trust (D. Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). In Table 2, we
provide a brief list of practical approaches drawn from different fields of management
studies. We see such forms of reaction to crises as constituting possible forms of action
in protecting or restoring brand trust, and we propose that they should be also taken
into consideration in consumer behaviour and marketing research.
542 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Table 2 Examples of strategies for brand-crisis media management.

Management research
field Organisational processes Reference
Public relations Image restoration Benoit (1995)
Corporate reputation Reputation rescue Jackson (2004)
Media studies and Media handling and lobbying Thomson and John (2007)
communications
Crisis management and Crisis containmentMedia Coombs (1999)Ulmer, Sellnow,
crisis communications managementApologiaCrisis and Seeger (2007)Griese
management decision making (2002)Hearit (2005)Seeger,
Sellnow, and Ulmer (2003)

More specifically, a brand in crisis needs primarily an intensive organisational effort,

which could remove the images of amplified risk and restore trust and loyalty among
consumers. While Benoit (1995) discussed the role of communicative reaction to crises,
Hearit (2005) argues that when a crisis evolves into a scandal, a public apologia is
necessary as part of organisational efforts to argue that errors will be corrected and that
things may go back to normal; it is the projected return in normality that reinforces trust
and ensures the survival and continuity of a brands life. Effective brand-crisis
management should aim at adjusting with the media and public concerns and minimise
the negative effects by supporting brand trust and minimising the perceived risk.
Lastly, our findings must be understood in the context of our studys
methodological trade offs and limitations. The emphasis of this study was on
reaching understanding rather than generalisation. Further research with the use of a
larger number of participants with more diverse characteristics and background could
contribute to a more holistic understanding of this topic. Moreover, the findings
presented are based on a low-involvement and low-cost disposable product.
Examining other types of products, such as high-involvement and luxury products
along with services, could provide us with additional insights. Also future research
investigating the role of new media in the projection of crises could expand our
understanding of how they might affect consumers brand trust in a collective rather
than individual way, through the use of virtual communities.

References
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York:
Free Press.
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When good brands go bad. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31, 116.
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R.E., & Unnava, H.R. (2000). Consumer response to negative
publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2),
203214.
Altheide, D., & Snow, R.R. (1979). Media logic. London: Sage.
Anderson, J.C., & Narus, J.A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturing firm
working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54, 4258.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Benoit, W. (1995). Accounts, excuses and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies.
New York: State University of New York Press.
 Yannopoulou et al. Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust 543

Birch, J. (1994). New factors in crisis planning and response. Public Relations Quarterly, 39,
3134.
Bond, J., & Kirshenbaum, R. (1998). Under the radar: Talking to todays cynical consumer.
New York: John Wiley.
Breakwell, G.M., & Barnett, J. (2003). Social amplification of risk and the layering method. In
N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 80101).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Canning, L., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2007). Trust in buyerseller relationships: The challenge of
environmental (green) adaptation. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 10731095.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Qualitative marketing research.
London: Sage.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society Volume 1: The information age: Economy,
society and culture (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust to brand
performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 8193.
Chernatony, L. (1989). Understanding consumers perceptions of competitive tiers can
perceived risk help? Journal of Marketing Management, 4(3), 288299.
Coombs, W.T. (1999). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, responding.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Critcher, C. (2003). Moral panics and the media. Milton Keynes, England: Open University
Press.
Dahlen, M., & Lange, F. (2006). A disaster is contagious: How a brand in crisis affects other
brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 46, 388397.
Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The
moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 215226.
Dean, D.H. (2004). Consumer reaction to negative publicity. Journal of Business
Communications, 41(2), 192211.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J., & Yagiie-Guillent, M. (2003). Development and
validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Market Research, 45, 3553.
Dennis, E.E., & Merrill, J.C. (1996). Media debates: Issues in mass communication. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Deutsch, M. (1973). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(4), 265267.
Doney, P.M., & Cannon, J.P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyerseller
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 3551.
Elliott, R., & Yannopoulou, N. (2007). The nature of trust in brands: A psycho-social model.
European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 988998.
Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (Eds.). (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Fink, S. (1986). Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. Lincoln, NE: Authors Guild
Edition.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343373.
Gamson, W.A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social
construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373393.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Princeton Hall.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity, self and society in the late modern age.
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Griese, N. (2002). How to manage organizational communication during crisis. Tucker,
GA: Anvil.
Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual
choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85112.
Habermas, J. (2006). The public sphere: An encyclopedia article. In M.G. Durham
& D.M. Kellner (Eds.), Media and cultural studies keywords (pp. 7378). Blackwell.
544 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Hearit, K. (2005). Crisis management by apology: Corporate responses to allegations of

wrongdoing. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hiscock, J. (2001). Most trusted brands. Marketing, 1, 3233.
Jackson, K.T. (2004). Building reputational capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jevons, C., & Gabbott, M. (2000). Trust, brand equity and brand reality in Internet business
relationships: An interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(6),
619634.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47(2), 263291.
Kasperson, R., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick,
S.J. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2),
178187.
Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of
risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson, & P. Slovic
(Ed.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 1345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing consumer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 122.
Krippendorff, K. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction. London: Sage.
Laczniak, R., DeCarlo, T., & Ramaswami, S. (2001). Consumers responses to negative
word-of-mouth communication: An attribution theory perspective. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 11(1), 5773.
Long-Tolbert, S., Till, B., & Swaminathan, S. (2006). Product attribute evaluations:
Understanding the role of consumer experience and halo effects. Advances in Consumer
Research, 33, 678679.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Macpherson, I., Brooker, R., & Ainsworth, P. (2000). Case study in the contemporary world of
research: Using notions of purpose, place, process and product to develop some principles
for practice. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(1), 4961.
Mai, L.W., & Ness, M. (1997). Consumers perceptions of mail-order speciality foods. Journal
of Marketing Management, 13(7), 705724.
Marketing News (1995, November 6). Consumers eager to know values that guide business
decisions. volume 29, Issue 23, pp. 5.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709734.
McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 2459.
McQuail, D. (2003). McQuails mass communication theory (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Mitroff, I., Shrivastava, P., & Udwadia, F. (1987). Effective crisis management. The Academy of
Management Executive, 1(3), 283292.
Moore, G., & Sekhon, H. (2005). Multi-brand loyalty cards: A good idea. Journal of Marketing
Management, 21(56), 625640.
Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitmenttrust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 2038.
Murray, E., & Shohen, S. (1992). Lessons from the Tylenol tragedy on surviving a corporate
crisis. Medical Marketing and Media, 27, 1419.
Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for the unconscious alteration of
judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250256.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of
Communication, 24, 4351.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion Our social skin. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Patterson, B. (1993). Crises impact on reputation management. Public Relations Journal, 49,
4748.
 Yannopoulou et al. Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust 545

Pidgeon, N., Henwood, K., & Maguire, B. (1999). Public health communication and the social
amplification of risks: Present knowledge and future prospects. In Handbook of
Environmental Risk and Management (pp. 289318). Oxford, England: Blackwell Science.
Regester, M., & Larkin, J. (2005). Risk issues and crisis management: A casebook of best practice
(3rd ed.). London: Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR).
Ring, A., Schriber, M., & Horton, R.L. (1980). Some effects of perceived risk on consumer
information processing. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 8(3), 255263.
Rousseau, D.M.S., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all:
A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393404.
Ryals, L., Dias, S., & Berger, M. (2007). Optimising marketing spend: Return maximisation and risk
minimisation in the marketing portfolio. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(910), 9911011.
Seeger, M., Sellnow, T., & Ulmer, R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Shapiro, S.P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93,
623658.
Sichtmann, C. (2007). An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate
brand. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 9991015.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.
Siomkos, G., & Kurzbard, G. (1994). The hidden crisis in product-harm crisis management.
European Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 3041.
Slovic, P. (2000). Perception of risk. In P. Slovic (Ed.), The perception of risk (pp. 220231).
London: Earthscan.
Smith, J. (1995). Understanding the media: A sociology of mass communication. Kresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal
of Consumer Research, 21, 491503.
Stake, E.R. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Susarla, A. (2003). Plague and arsenic: Assignment of blame in the mass media and the social
amplification and attenuation of risk. In N. Pidgeon, R. Kasperson, P. Slovic (Eds.), The social
amplification of risk (pp. 179207). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, S., & Borgan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for
meanings. New York: John Wiley.
Thomson, S. & John, S. (2007). Public Affairs in Practice: A Practical Guide to Lobbying. Kogan
Page Publishers.
Thompson, J.B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Cambridge,
England: Polity Press.
Tsoukas, H. (1997). The tyranny of light: The temptations and the paradoxes of the information
society. Futures, 29(9), 827843.
Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T., & Seeger, M. (2007). Effective crisis communication. London: Sage.
Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

About the authors

Natalia Yannopoulou is a lecturer in marketing at Nottingham University Business School and an
associate fellow in the Centre for Cultural Policy Studies at the University of Warwick. She has a
PhD in Marketing from Warwick Business School. Her research interests are mainly in the area
of advertising and branding. She also has extensive consulting experience in retail and services
marketing in Europe and Latin America.
Corresponding author: Natalia Yannopoulou, Nottingham University Business School Jubilee
Campus, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK
546 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

T 44 (0)115 8232350
E Natalia.Yannopoulou@nottingham.ac.uk

Epaminondas Koronis is Lecturer in Management Studies at Cranfield University. He is also the

Director of Research at Reputation Tab research and consulting ltd and an Executive Advisor for
Novendia pharmaceutical. He holds a PhD in Organisational Studies from Warwick Business
School. His research interests lie in the areas of media and organizations, organizational crises
and the knowledge management of crises.
E ekoronis@repulab.com

Richard Elliott is professor of marketing and Dean of the School of Management at the
University of Bath. He is also a Fellow of St. Annes College, Oxford. He is a visiting
professor at SDA Bocconi, Milan, Thammasat University Bangkok, Helsinki University of
Technology, and Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Previously he was the first person to be
appointed to a readership in marketing at the University of Oxford and was a deputy director of
the Said Business School. He worked for 12 years in brand management with a number of
U.S. multinationals and as an account director at an international advertising agency.
E R.Elliott@bath.ac.uk
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.