Page 1
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
2
Abstract
Despitetheprogressionofsocialmediaandthevastresearchoncrisiscommunication,we
foundthatlittlewasknownabouthowsocialmediaplatformshaveaffectedtheprogressionoffast
food chains’ crisis communication strategies and to what effect a crisis can affect stakeholders’
perceivedimageofagivencompanyorbrand.Wewouldliketostudythisandtherebyexaminehow
didChipotleMexicanGrillandDomino’sPizzachoose tomanageand respond to theirgivencrises
andhowhave the Internetand socialmediaplatformsaffected theprogressionof the companies’
crisis communication strategies? Furthermore, we also wonder to what effect each of the crises
affectedstakeholders’perceivedimageofthecompaniesandtheirindividualbrands.
ThisthesisrecoversthecrisiscommunicationstrategiesofbothChipotleMexicanGrilland
Domino’sPizzathroughacomparativequalitativeanalysisusingtheTheoryofOrganizationalImage
Management, Situational Crisis Communication Strategy, Image Restoration Theory and Critical
Discourse Analysis on press releases, social media statements, news articles and stakeholder
comments for each company. In addition,we have conducted a questionnaire-based surveywith
211 respondents asking them about their opinions regarding the topic of food safety issues and
health violations, fast food chains in general and specifically about Domino’s Pizza and Chipotle
MexicanGrill’scases.Ananalysisofthesedocumentsyieldsthecrisiscommunicationstrategiesof
eachcompanyandtheperceptionsofstakeholdersandtheresults fromtheconductedsurveyare
used to support these findings. The findings of this thesis add depth to understanding the
significanceofcrisiscommunicationandsocialmediawherebothsocialmediaandeWoMconstitute
anopportunityandachallengeforcompanieswhenundergoingacrisis.Toconclude,itisimpossible
tosaywhetherChipotle’scrisiswilleverreachatrueconclusion,or if itsongoingcrisiswillmerely
leadthecompanytofailureincomparisontoDomino’sseeminglysuccessfulcrisiscommunication.
Regardlessofacompanyachievingsuccessfulcrisiscommunication,webelievethatwiththe
useofsocialmediatoday,acompanycanneverpredictwhennegativeeWoMcanappearagainand
potentiallyexposeacompanytoanewcrisisthreateningitsreputation.
Page 2
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
3
TableofContents
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................5
2. Methodology.......................................................................................................................92.1 TheoryofScience:Philosophicalview....................................................................................92.2 Hermeneutics...............................................................................................................................102.3 Perspectives..................................................................................................................................112.4 ResearchMethod........................................................................................................................112.4.1 ResearchMethodandDataCollection..........................................................................................112.4.1.1 CaseStudyMethod..........................................................................................................................................122.4.1.2 Documentanalysis..........................................................................................................................................132.4.1.3 DefinitionofGenre..........................................................................................................................................162.4.1.4 Questionnaire-BasedSurvey......................................................................................................................182.4.1.5 PressReleasesCollectionandLimitations...........................................................................................242.4.1.6 SocialMediaCollectionandLimitations................................................................................................262.4.1.7 NewsArticlesCollectionandLimitations.............................................................................................28
2.5 AnalyticalApproach...................................................................................................................29
3. TheoreticalFramework.....................................................................................................303.1 CriticalDiscourseAnalysis......................................................................................................313.2 TheConceptofPublicRelations............................................................................................333.3 DefinitionofCorporateReputationandBrandImage...................................................343.4 DefinitionoftheInternetandSocialMedia.......................................................................363.5 DefinitionofOnlineFirestorm...............................................................................................383.6 SocialMediaMarketingandeWoM.......................................................................................393.7 TheConceptofCrisisCommunication.................................................................................403.7.1 CrisisDefinition......................................................................................................................................403.7.2 CrisisCommunication..........................................................................................................................413.7.3 OrganizationalImageManagementTheory...............................................................................433.7.4 SituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory..................................................................................443.7.5 ImageRepairTheory............................................................................................................................47
4. ContextualSetting................................................................................................................524.1 Chipotle’sProfile.........................................................................................................................524.2 Domino’sProfile..........................................................................................................................534.3 ContextofChipotleCrisis.........................................................................................................544.4 ContextofDomino’sCrisis.......................................................................................................54
5. Analysis...................................................................................................................................555.1 PressStatementsfromChipotleandDomino’s................................................................555.1.1 ChipotlePressReleases.......................................................................................................................565.1.2 Domino’sStatements............................................................................................................................685.1.3 SummaryonChipotleandDomino’sPressReleasesandStatements............................71
5.2 SocialMediaStatementsfromChipotleandDomino’s...................................................735.2.1 ChipotleSocialMediaPostsandStakeholderComments....................................................735.2.2 Domino’sSocialMediaPostsandStakeholderComments..................................................805.2.3 SummaryofChipotleandDomino’sSocialMediaUsage......................................................87
5.3 MediaCoverageofChipotleandDomino’s.........................................................................895.3.1 NewsArticlesregardingChipotle...................................................................................................90
Page 3
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
4
5.3.2 MediaCoverageofDomino’s.............................................................................................................965.3.3 SummaryofChipotleandDomino’sMediaCoverage............................................................99
6. Conclusion......................................................................................................................100
7. References......................................................................................................................104
8. Appendix.........................................................................................................................112Appendix1–ChipotleTimeline....................................................................................................................112Appendix2–Domino’sTimeline................................................................................................................113Appendix3–ConductedSurvey...................................................................................................................114Appendix4–SurveyQuestions.....................................................................................................................124Appendix5–FirstPressReleaseChipotle...............................................................................................128Appendix6–SecondPressReleaseChipotle..........................................................................................130Appendix7–ThirdPressReleaseChipotle.............................................................................................132Appendix8–FourthPressReleaseChipotle...........................................................................................134Appendix9–FifthPressReleaseChipotle...............................................................................................136Appendix10–FourthQuarterAnnualReportChipotle.....................................................................138Appendix11–CEOLetterChipotle.............................................................................................................142Appendix12–FirstPressStatementDomino’s.....................................................................................143Appendix13–SecondStatementDomino’s............................................................................................144Appendix14–EmailtoDomino’s................................................................................................................145Appendix15–TwitterChipotle....................................................................................................................146Appendix16–FacebookChipotle................................................................................................................153Appendix17–FacebookDomino’s.............................................................................................................157Appendix18–FirstNewsArticleChipotle..............................................................................................162Appendix19–SecondNewsArticleChipotle.........................................................................................164Appendix20–ThirdNewsArticleChipotle............................................................................................166Appendix21–FourthNewsArticleChipotle..........................................................................................168Appendix22–NewsArticleCommentsChipotle..................................................................................170Appendix23–FirstNewsSegmentDomino’s........................................................................................174Appendix24–SecondNewsSegmentDomino’s...................................................................................175Appendix25–NewsSegmentCommentsDomino’s...........................................................................177
Page 4
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
5
1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, technology has advanced and with that, the social media
platformsusedonadailybasishaveadjustedtheexpectationsofacompany’suseofsocialmedia
for communication during a crisis. Due to the constant advancement of technology, companies
should remain aware in regards to their reputation and respondwith social media when a crisis
emergesasapublicrelationstactic(OttandTheunissen2015,97).
TimothyW.Coombsdiscussestheimportanceofcrisiscommunicationandhowitcanreflect
onacompany’sreputationandifnotaddressedproperlytherearepotentialthreatstothecompany
thatcanaffectitsreputationorstakeholders1(Coombs2011).Internetuserstoday,whoalsocanbe
seenasstakeholdersofmanycompanies’,spendamajorityoftheirtimeonsocialmediaplatforms,
andinthistime“atleastonceamonththey[have]expressedcomplaintsorconcernsaboutbrands
orservicesonsocialmedia”(OttandTheunissen2015,97).Thiscancreatechallengesforcompanies
pre-crisis and post-crisis as “the development of social media hasmade companies vulnerable to
negativepublicityandendangeredtheirreputation”(Hornetal.2015,194).
Acrisiscanbedefinedinmanyways,oneofthedefinitionsbeinga“suddenandunexpected
event that threatens to disrupt an organization’s operations and poses both a financial and
reputationalthreat”(Coombs2007,164).Acrisiscouldalsobedefinedas“amajoroccurrencewith
a potentially negative outcome affecting an organization as well as its publics, services, products
and/or good name. It interrupts normal business transactions and can, at worst, threaten the
existenceoftheorganization”(Fearn-Banks2007,2).In2009,Domino’sPizza(henceforth,Domino’s)
experienceda crisis, asdidChipotleMexicanGrill (henceforth,Chipotle) in2015.Bothof the two
American fast food chains experienced crises nationwide in the United States and in both of the
casestheInternetandsocialmediainfluencedthecrisesandthecrisiscommunication.
Somearguethat,“throughtheemergenceofsocialmedia,responsibilityforoccurringcrises
can be attributed to an organization faster and more easily” (Horn et al. 2015, 201) and this is
exactlywhatwebelievehashappenedforbothChipotleandDomino’s.Domino’swasexposedtoan
undesirable YouTube videomade by two of its employees breaking food violations at one of its
franchiselocations.Chipotleexperiencedalargenumberoffoodsafetyoutbreaks(E.Coli,Norovirus
andSalmonella)inseverallocationsintheUnitedStates.
1Astakeholderis“aperson,groupororganizationthathasinterestorconcerninanorganization”(BusinessDictionary,n.d.)
Page 5
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
6
Asthescopeofthecrises,especiallyChipotle’s, isextensive,wehavecreatedtwooutlines
with timelines of all themajor actions and reactions from the Chipotle and Domino’s during the
crises. The timelineswill be presented on the next two pages (p. 7 and 8), and they can also be
foundinAppendix1and2.
Theobjectiveofthisthesisisnottoidentifyrightorwrong,butratheranalyzehowChipotle
andDomino’schosetohandlethecrisesasneutrallyaspossible.Ourfocusinthisthesiswillbeona
numberof selectedpress releasesandstatementsChipotleandDomino’spublished in theUnited
States during the crises to analyzehow the companies havemanaged their reputations and crisis
communication. Reputations are “notoriously difficult to manage because they comprise ‘soft’
variables like perceptions of credibility, reliability, accountability, trustworthiness and
competence”(Helm,Liehr-Gobbers,&Storck,20112)andtherefore,weare interested inexamining
how the Internet andvarious socialmediaplatformshaveaffected thedevelopmentof the crises
and the reputations of Chipotle and Domino’s.Wewonder if companies can use socialmedia to
repair their image? We also want to examine the power of social media and the influence of
stakeholdersontheseplatforms.
ThisleadustotheproblemstatementwherewewonderhowdidChipotleMexicanGrilland
Domino’sPizzachoosetomanageandrespondtotheirgivencrisesandhowhavetheInternetand
socialmediaplatformsaffectedtheprogressionofthecompanies’crisiscommunicationstrategies?
Furthermore, we also wonder to what effect each of the crises affected stakeholders’ perceived
imageofthecompaniesandtheirindividualbrands.
2 Helm,Liehr-Gobbers,&ChristopherStorck.ReputationManagement.(NewYork:Springer,2011).quotedinOtt,LarissaandPetraTheunissen.2015.PublicRelationsReview,Reputationsatrisk:Engagementduringsocialmediacrises
Page 6
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
7
! ! ! ! Chipotle’s!Timeline!!! !1.!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!August!2015:!In!Seattle,!WA!and!Portland,!OR!reported!E.Coli!and!different!locations.!
!!
2.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!August!2015:!An!outbreak!of!Norovirus!was!exposed!in!Simi!Valley,!CA!where!243!customers!fell!ill.!!
3.!!
!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!October!19,!2015!–!!!!!!!!!!!!!!End!of!November!2015!E.!Coli!was!discovered!to!be!related!to!12!states!across!the!United!States!where!60!people!fell!violently!ill.!!
4.!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!December!2015!In!Boston,!MA,!the!second!outbreak!of!Norovirus!was!exposed!sickening!143!customers.!!!
5.!!
December!16,!2015:!Steve!Ells,!CEO!and!Founder!of!Chipotle!announced!a!food!safety!plan!called!“Comprehensive!Food!Safety”!
6.!!
February!8,!2016:!Chipotle!closed!all!locations!nationwide!for!an!“AllRTeam!Meeting”!to!discuss!food!safety!with!employees.!!!
Page 7
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
8
! ! ! ! Domino’s!Timeline!
1.!!
April!12,!2009:!An!employee!of!Domino’s!!(Hammonds)!posted!a!’prank’!video!on!YouTube!–!it!reached!29,000!views!within!a!couple!of!hours!!!
2.!!
April!13,!2009:!Domino’s!was!alerted!about!the!video!by!theconsumerist.com!(morning).!Domino’s!found!out!how!posted!the!video!(evening).!!
3.!!
April!14,!2009:!!Two!employees!were!fired.!Domino’s!contacted!local!health!department.!!Between!April!13R14,!the!views!!of!the!video!increased!from!29,000!to!700.000!
4.!!
April!15,!2009:!The!original!video!is!removed!from!YouTube!–it!was!seen!by!1,000,000.!!A!Twitter!account!was!created!by!Domino’s.!and!an!official!statement!by!the!CEO!was!sent!out!!
5.!!
April!20,!2009:!Multiple!copies!of!the!original!video!were!posted!on!YouTube!
6.!!
April!18,!2016:!!Copies!of!the!original!video!are!still!available!on!YouTube,!e.g.!one!of!them!has!939,427!views!
Page 8
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
9
2. Methodology
Thissectionwillbestructuredintwoparts.Thefirstpartwillbethetheoryofscience,here
wewillargueforthechosenperspectivewithinthemethodologyandtheoryofsciencebeingsocial
constructivism,whichwillbeappliedforthisthesis.Furthermore,wewillarguefortheontological
and epistemological viewpoints accompanied by hermeneutics. Second, the methods and
techniquesusedinthedatacollectionwillbeaccountedfor.
2.1 TheoryofScience:Philosophicalview
Thefirstlevelofmethodologypresentsthephilosophicalviewadoptedinthisthesis,aview
that is guided by social constructivism. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann first used this
perspective in their work in 1966, The Social Construction of Reality, where social constructivism
allowsforthepossibilitythatpeoplecandevelopmeaningfromobjectsintheenvironmentaswell
as from social interactions (Crotty, 19983). We will analyze our empirical data from a social
constructivistperspective,andwehavechosenthisperspectiveaswebelieve(crisis)communication
issociallycreatedandconstructedbyindividuals.
Society, theassumedreality,andourknowledgeof thisarenot inherent inhumannature
accordingtosocialconstructivism– instead, it isbelievedthatourknowledge isaresultofhuman
intervention,andtherebyculturalandsocialinterventionaswell.Oneofthemainfocusesofsocial
constructivism is that knowledge and reality are seen in the specific social context inwhich they
occur (Jacobsen,n.d,),andthisperspectiveclaimsthatagivenphenomenon is, in fact,man-made
(CollinandKøppe2012,248).Ontologyandepistemology shapesocial constructivism.Ontology is
knownasthebranchofmetaphysics,whichisthephilosophyconcerningtheoverallnatureofwhat
thingsare.Whereas,epistemologyisthetheoryofknowledgeandhowknowledgeisacquired.
Therearethreebasedassumptionsinsocialconstructivism:reality,knowledgeandlearning.
Realitybuildsonthebeliefthatreality isconstructedthroughhumanactionwhere individuals ina
societycreatethepropertiesoftheworldtogethertobemanufacturedbyindividuals(Kukla,20004).
Thesecondassumptionwithinsocialconstructivismisknowledge,whereitisahumanproductthat
3MichaelCrotty,TheFoundationofSocialResearch(London:SagePublications,1998),quotedinBeaumieKim,SocialConstructivism:Emergingperspectivesonlearning,teaching,andtechnology.AccessedMay5,20164Andre,Kukla,SocialConstructivismandthePhilosophyofScience(NewYork:Routledge.2000),quotedinBeaumieKim,SocialConstructivism:Emergingperspectivesonlearning,teachingandtechnology.AccessedMay5,2016
Page 9
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
10
issociallyandculturallyconstructed(Ernest,19935andGredler,19976).Lastly,learningisseenasa
social processwhere it not based solely on an individual’s view but as individuals in societywho
learntogethertoformaviewonsociety.
Overall,socialconstructivismis focusedonhowindividuals insocietycancreatetheirown
perceptionsandinterpretationsoftheworldsurroundingthemthroughindividualpastexperiences
andinteractionswiththeworldaroundthem(McMahon,19977).
Consideringaworldvieworarealityfromthisperspectiveistheessencewhenworkingwith
crisis communication; otherwise thiswould not exist as a real thing and to some individuals as a
problemorissue.Fundamentally,crisiscommunicationisbasedonworldviewsthatexist.Inregards
to Chipotle’s and Domino’s handling of their different crises, it is of interest to see the different
worldviewsandrealitiesfromthedifferentstakeholders’andindividuals’perspectives–itcouldbe
thattheseindividualsmayperceivethecrisesdifferently.
A perspective within social constructivism is “the reality created by the media” (Weber,
2002).Throughasocialconstructivistperspective,themediaisregardedasacreatororproducerof
anassumed reality. This couldbewhathashappened inChipotle’s andDomino’s situations – the
mediamighthaverepresentedthetwocompaniesinacertainway,andthenitmayhavebecomea
differentrealityforsomeindividuals–here,perceptionplaysanimportantrole.
2.2 Hermeneutics
Another important part in this thesis is hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the interpretation
and knowledge about interpretation. In order to understand a part of something, it must be
understood based on thewhole, and thewholemust be understood based on the parts (Kjørup,
2013). In this thesis, we cannot avoid having a pre-understanding regarding the two companies,
ChipotleandDomino’s,asweknowofthecompaniesandtheirbrandsbeforehand.Givenourpre-
understanding regarding the companies before working with each case, we could have some
assumptions, expectations and maybe even prejudices about Chipotle, Domino’s and their given
cases.Weentertheprojectwithapre-understanding,butthroughouranalysisandinterpretation,
hopefully new knowledge and thereby a new understanding is acquired, which means that
knowledgedevelopsconstantly,thiscouldbecalledthehermeneuticcircle.
5PaulErnst.SocialConstructivismasaPhilosophyofMathematics:RadicalConstructivismRehabilitated?(UniversityofExeter:1999)QuotedinBeaumieKim,SocialConstructivism:Emergingperspectivesonlearning,teachingandtechnology.Accessed6MargaretE.Gredler,LearningandInstruction:TheoryintoPractice(NewJersey:PrenticeHall,1997)quotedinBeaumieKimSocialConstructivism:Emergingperspectivesonlearning,teachingandtechnology.AccessedMay5,20167M.McMahon,SocialConstructivismandtheWorldWideWeb-AParadigmforLearning(Perth,Australia:1997)quotedinBeaumieKim,SocialConstructivism:Emergingperspectivesonlearning,teachingandtechnology.AccessedMay5,2016
Page 10
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
11
2.3 Perspectives
Inordertoexaminetheproblemstatement,twoperspectiveshavebeencombined.Firstly,the
perspective of each company’s communicative strategies as the contextual part of the crisis;
Secondly, the use of social media posts from stakeholders’ views, as we believe they are an
importantpartoftheempiricaldata.Thesecondperspectivewillbecombinedwiththefirstinorder
to establish how brand image is constructed through discourses in the surveys and social media
comparedtoeachbrand’scrisiscommunication,thusinfluencingitsreputation.
ToexaminetheconsequencesofthediscoursesrelatedtoshapingthereputationofChipotle
andDomino’sandtogainanoverviewofthetwogivencases,afocusonAmericanstakeholdershas
beenchosen.Thisperspectivewaschosenoveran internationalperspective,wewant toexamine
theeffectofacrisislocatedinonespecificarea.
2.4 ResearchMethod
Inthissection,theoverallmethodoftheresearchwillbeaccountedfor.Thespecificapproach
ofdatacollectionwillbepresentedinordertointroduceargumentsfortheusedapproachtodata
collection,datasample,developmentofresearchtools,dataprocessingandlimitationofvalidity.At
theendofthissection,theresearchtoolswillbepresentedtogeneratetheknowledgeneededto
answertheproblemstatement.
2.4.1 ResearchMethodandDataCollection
Thisthesis is inspiredbysocialconstructivism,andwebelieveit is importanttosecurethe
qualityofmethodsthroughouttheanalysis.AccordingtoYin(2009),thiscanbeachievedbyhaving
multiplesourcesofevidence,whichtherebytriangulatestheperspectivesandmethodsbeingused
(Yin 2009, 45). Hence, both press releases via Chipotle and Domino’s websites and social media
statementshavebeencollectedintermsofacontextualpartandamediatedpart,bothpartsbeing
sociallyconstructed.
Thefirstpartdescribesthecontextinwhichthedataareembedded.ThisincludesChipotle
and Domino’s press releases and statements gathered from each company’s websites and the
Internet.Thepress releasesand statementsareused toexamine thecommunicative strategiesof
eachcompany.Thesecondpartisthemediatedpart,beingthecollectionofeachcompany’ssocial
Page 11
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
12
mediastatementsandstakeholdercomments.Thelastpartwillbeacollectionofnewsarticlesand
segmentsregardingbothcompanies’crises. Inaddition,wealso includeaselectionofstakeholder
comments.
Throughout the analysis, a questionnaire-based survey’s results are used to examine the
communicative effects of each crisis on Chipotle and Domino’s stakeholders’ brand loyalty,
perceptionofeachbrandandtheeffectivenessofthecompanies’crisiscommunication.Inaddition,
stakeholders’responsestoeachcrisis foundonsocialmedia,specificallyFacebookandTwitterare
included.Usingthestakeholders’viewwillgiveabroadperspectiveonindividualviewsandstudyif
thestakeholdersrespondtoeachcompany'sattemptstousesocialmediaasanoutletfortheircrisis
communicationstrategies.Bycollectingempiricaldatathisway,notallstakeholders’statementson
socialmedia are incorporated thereforewe are aware that there is some subjectivity in choosing
stakeholders’statements.Therefore,wewillbeawareofchoosingawidevarietyofstatementsand
commentsviasocialmedia.Inchoosingavariety,aspectrumofresponsesfromnegativetopositive
will be selected, to ensure including a wide array of opinions and comments on social media
platforms.Bydoingso,wetrytolimitthesubjectivity.
2.4.1.1 CaseStudyMethod
When working with a real-life case, which is greatly context-based, the quality of the
research can be questioned, as many scholars critique the relevance of context-based research
(Flyvbjerg2006,234).However,accordingtoFlyvbjerg,acontext-basedcasewillenhancetheoverall
understanding and provide a base for generalization at an in-depth levelwhereas, a context free
casewouldofferamoretheoreticaldiscussionasFlyvbjergstates,
“Onecanoftengeneralizeonthebasisofasinglecase,andthecasestudymaybecentralto
scientificdevelopmentviageneralizationassupplementoralternativetoothermethods.But
formalgeneralizationisovervaluedasasourceofscientificdevelopment,whereas“theforce
ofexample”isunderestimated”(Flyvbjerg2006,228)
ThisisvalidatedbyFairclough’sargumentthatthecontextofacasehasanunderlyingeffect
on thediscourses that interpret thecase (Fairclough2010,1215).Hence, this thesiswillprovidea
comparative case study based on the problem statement introduced in the introduction and
repeatedhereforconvenience:
Page 12
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
13
Howdid ChipotleMexicanGrill andDomino’s Pizza choose tomanage and respond to their given
crises and how have the Internet and social media platforms affected the progression of the
companies’crisiscommunicationstrategies?Furthermore,wealsowondertowhateffecteachofthe
crisesaffectedstakeholders’perceivedimageofthecompaniesandtheirindividualbrands.
Whenusingacasestudy,one isable toexamine important featuresofagivencasewhile
analyzingcredibleinterpretationsofwhatisfound.Also,oneisabletouseempiricaldatatotestthe
validity of the data through a case study to create an argument behind one’s analysis alongwith
researchandliteraturetobackupthoseclaims(SwannandPratt2003,117).
SwannandPratt argue that thereare three typesof case studies that canbeused (2003,
117).Thefirsttypeusestheoriestotestacertainstudyinageneraltopic,knownas“Theory-seeking
andTheory-testing”.Theevidencegainedfromatheory-basedcasestudyisarguedtobespeculative
statements or generalizations (Swann and Pratt 2003, 117). The second type is referred to as
“Storytelling and Picture-drawing Case Studies”, where a narrative is used taking into account
“educational events, projects, programmes, institutions or systems” (Swann and Pratt 2003, 117).
The third type of case study is known as an “Evaluative Case Study” where a researcher uses
knowledge from his/her given educational program, projects or events to analyze a given case
throughananalysis(SwannandPratt2003,117).Forthisthesis,neitherofthecasesfitonespecific
type; both themethodsof a “Theory-seekingand Theory-testing”, using knowledge from theories
and combining that knowledge with an “Evaluative Case Study”, using knowledge gained during
studies,areused.
2.4.1.2 Documentanalysis
In Brinkmann and Tanggaard’s book “Kvalitative metoder” (2015), a chapter called
“Dokumentanalyse”ispresentedbyKennethLynggaard.
Lynggaard argues that it is almost impossible to conduct an empirical study without
includingdocuments,andtherebyadocumentanalysis(Lynggaard2015,153).Adocumentanalysis
canbeusedwithinabroadspectrumofdifferentstudyarease.g.discursiveanalysisorinstitutional
analysis. Furthermore, a document analysis is typically focused on development over a certain
timeframe(Lynggaard2015,153).
Inordertoexplainwhatadocumentanalysisis,itisimportanttoestablishwhatadocument
is. According to Lynggaard, a document is language that is fixated in text and time, generally
speaking.Adocumentcanalsoincludephotos,butinregardstodocumentanalysis,thefocusison
Page 13
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
14
written texts such as newspaper articles, letters and academic books (Lynggaard 2015, 154).
Lynggaardemphasizes thateven thoughadocument is fixated in time, itdoesnotmean that the
documentdoesnotdevelopandhealsoarguesthattherearethreetypesofdocuments;primary,
secondary and tertiary (Lynggaard 2015, 154). A primary document is a document that only
circulatesbetweenacertainamountofpeoplecreatedalmostimmediatelyafteragivensituationor
eventthatthedocumentrefersto–thiscouldbeminutesofameetingorpersonalletters,thatis,
documents thatarenot intended for thepublic. Thesedocuments canbedifficult to retrieveand
gain insight intoasthedocumentspotentiallycouldholdprivateand/orsensitive informationtoa
givenpersonorcompany(Lynggaard2015,154-155).
Asecondarydocument isadocumentthat isavailableforthepublicand iscreatedalmost
immediately after a given situation or event that the document refers to - it is not necessarily
created for thepublicasa targetgroup,but it isavailable for thegeneralpublic (Lynggaard2015,
155).
Thelastdocumenttype,tertiary,isadocumentthatisavailableforthegeneralpubliclike
the secondary document, but it is created at a time after the given situation or event that the
documentrefers toor treats.Thiscoulde.g.bepublishedmemoirsorabackgroundarticlewhere
thedocumentisananalysisofagivensituationoreventafterittookplace.(Lynggaard2015,155).
Lynggaardarguesthatitisnotpossibletodistinguishbetweenthethreetypesofdocuments
all thetime,but thepoint,ashestates, is theacknowledgementof thedifferencestimewiseand
also of which target groups the sendermight have had inmind when creating the document. It
dependsonwhataspectonewantstocover,andLynggaardemphasizesthatacombinationofthese
different types of documents could be preferable when wanting to create an in-depth analysis
(Lynggaard2015,155-156).Thisthesiswillmainlyusesecondary,butalsotertiarydocuments.The
secondarydocumentsusedarepressreleasesandstatementsmadeimmediatelyatthebeginningof
bothDomino’sandChipotle’scrises.Thesedocumentsareavailableforthegeneralpublicandare
withinpeople’s reachby searchingonGoogle. The tertiarydocumentsweuseare variousarticles
andstatementspublishedduringDomino’sandChipotle’scrises.Thesewillbeaccountedforinthe
followingsection.
Page 14
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
15
Sender Date Type/Three Part Typology
Document Type
Chipotle November 3, 2015 Secondary Press Release Chipotle November 10, 2015 Secondary Press Release Chipotle November 20, 2015 Secondary Press Release Chipotle December 4, 2015 Secondary Press Release Chipotle January 19, 2016 Secondary Press Release Chipotle February 2, 2016 Secondary Annual Report Chipotle December 16, 2015 Tertiary CEO Letter
Domino’s April 14, 2009 Secondary Press Statement Domino’s April 15, 2009 Secondary Press Statement
NBC News September 4, 2015 Tertiary News Article Oregon Live October 31, 2015 Tertiary News Article
NBC News December 4, 2015 Tertiary News Article NPR February 1, 2016 Tertiary News Article NBC April 15, 2009 Tertiary News Segment
NBC/Today Show April 17, 2009 Tertiary News Segment
Oneoftheadvantagesofusingadocumentanalysisisthatitcan,contrarytoe.g.a
focus group interviews, provide thorough background knowledge of data over a longer period of
time–aninterviewmightonlygiveasnapshotofthegiveneventorsituationonewantstoanalyze,
whereasthedifferentdocumenttypescombinedcangiveabroaderperspectiveofthis(Lynggaard
2015,156).Another importantthing inthismatter isthatadocumentasthepointofdeparture is
notcreatedwiththepurposetobeapartofananalysis,butofcoursesomesendersofdocuments,
for example, a press release could assume that a given document could become an object in an
analysis.Lynggaardemphasizesthatitthereforeisnotthatimportantifdocumentsrevealthetruth
about a given situation or event (Lynggaard 2015, 156). In this thesis, we use both a document
analysis and interviewmethod, being a online questionnaire-based survey. The processes of the
questionnaire-basedsurveywillbeaccountedforinsection2.4.1.4.
Lynggaard argues that the types of documents that are collected for a document analysis
dependontheresearchquestion(s)infocus,andhecontinuesbystatingthatinmostcasesitcould
be important tocoveracertain time frame/period (Lynggaard2015,156). Inorder toanswerand
cover the entire period of time regarding Domino’s and Chipotle’s crises, all press releases and
statementsmade in thosedifferentperiodshavebeen reviewed.Toclarify the twodifferent time
periods,twooutlinesofthecrisesareincluded(seep.7and8,Appendix1and2)–itiswithinthese
periodsthatthedocumentsforthisthesisaregathered.
Lynggaard presents a method to use when collecting documents called ‘the snowball
method’which also could be referred to as the snowball effect.With this approach one pursues
references between the documents, and it begins with the analyst(s) establishing one or more
Page 15
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
16
‘motherdocument(s)’;afterthis,referencesinthesedocumentsarepursued(Lynggaard2015,157).
Inthisthesis,the‘motherdocuments’arethepressreleasesandstatementsfrombothChipotleand
Domino’sasthesearethefirstofficialstatementsfromthetwocompanies.
Eachdocumentwillbeaddressedwithawareness,asitisimportanttobeawareof
the documents authenticity, credibility, representativity and point of view (Lynggaard 2015, 163-
165).
2.4.1.3 DefinitionofGenre
Forthisthesis,wehavecollecteddifferentgenresoftextstouseforempiricaldata.Genres
canbedefinedas,
“a recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purpose(s)
identifiedandmutuallyunderstoodby themembersof theprofessionaloracademiccommunity in
which it regularlyoccurs.Mostoften it ishighlystructureandconventionalizedwithconstraintson
allowable contributions in terms of their intent, positioning, form and functional value. These
constraints, however, are often exploited by the expert members of the discourse community to
achieveprivateintentionswithintheframeworkofsociallyrecognizedpurpose(s)”(Bhatia1993,13)
Forthisthesis,wehavefocusedonsocialmediaasagenre,asub-genreofjournalismbeing
newsarticles,anothersub-genreasnewssegmentsviaYouTube,andlastlypressreleasesasagenre.
A genre is characterizedas a“rhetorical actionbasedon recurrent situations” (Miller 1984, 1598).
Within the rhetorical situation, there are three critical elements thatmake up the situation. The
three elements include an exigency (something needs to be done), constraints (persons, events,
objectsandrelations)andanaudience(whomustbeaffected)(YatesandOrlikowski1992,301).
Whendepictingagenre,itischaracterizedby“similarsubstanceandform”
(Yates and Orlikowski 1992, 301). A substance could be social motives, themes and topics
communicatedwithinatext.Aformcouldbethephysicalandlinguisticfeaturesthatarechosenfor
thetext(YatesandOrlikowski1992,301).Furthermore,therearethreeaspectstoaform,firstthe
structural features and formatting of the text (e.g. lists and fields), second the communication
medium chosen (e.g. paper, blog and intranet) and lastly, the language that differentiates in the
linguisticcharacteristicswhenformattingthetexts(e.g.legaljargonandtechnicaljargon)(Yatesand
Orlikowski1992,302). Inaddition,genresareable todevelopandchangeasBhatia (1993)states, 8Miller,C.Genreassocialaction.(London:Taylor&Francis,1984),quotedinYates,JoanneandWandaJ.Orlikowski.GenresofOrganizationalCommunication:AStructurationalApproachtoStudyingCommunicationandMedia.TheAcademyofManagementReview1992,301:17(2).AcademyofManagement
Page 16
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
17
“anymajor change in the communicativepurpose(s) is likely togiveusadifferentgenre;however
minorchangesormodificationshelpusdistinguishsub-genres”(1993,214).
Softwaregenres“includeonlinechat,blogs,socialnetworksandmicroblogs,andothertypes
of social media, [that] can be distinguished based on their communicative characteristics and
interactivefunctions”(Lomborg2011,58).Withinthesoftwaregenre,therearesub-genresdefined
bytheirparticularcommunicativepurposes.Therefore,asFacebookandTwitteraresocialnetworks,
theycouldbearguedtobeasub-genreofthesoftwaregenre(Lomborg2011,58-59).Sincesocial
mediaisusedasapublicdiscourseandasoftwaregenre,itcouldalsobeseenasitsowngenreora
sub-genreofthesocialnetworkgenre(Lomborg2011,55).Totheorizesocialmediainrelationofa
genre, itcanbebeneficialfortworeasonsaccordingtoLomborg(2011,57).Thefirstreasonbeing
that socialmediaprovides thedefinitionand framework that“captureshowdifferent textswithin
the social media environments resemble each other” (Lomborg 2011, 57-58). Secondly, it
“differentiates from other texts by their communicative characteristics and social functions.”
(Lomborg2011,57).
Somemay argue that socialmedia platforms are amedium.We agreewith this, but the
differencebetweenagenreandmediumisthatamediumisthesoftwarethat“emulatestechnical
andmaterialfeatures”(Lomborg2011,59),whereasagenreisthe“communicationconventionsand
expectations”(Lomborg2011,59).
Genresaresubjecttochangeand“computermediation isseenasaforcetowardschange,
whereagenremovingfromonemediumtoanotherfirstbecomesreplicatedtryingpreservecontent,
structure (form)andpurpose, thenchangestoavariant,utilizingthemediummore” (Ihlströmand
Lundberg,2002).The formandstructureofonlinearticlesaresimilar toaprintedarticlewhere it
contains a similar typeof content that is used to convey recent news.Online articles also have a
headingandtimestampsimilartoprintedarticlese.g.innewspapers.
Another form of a genre used in this thesis is the genre of press releases. Chipotle and
Domino’susedpressreleasesandstatementstorelayinformationtoitsstakeholders.Pressreleases
canbedefinedas,
“relatively short texts resembling news stories and containing what is considered by the
issuer to be newsworthy information; they are generally send to the journalist community
withthepurposeofhavingthempickedupbythepressandturnedintoactualnewsstories,
thusgeneratingpublicity”(Catenaccio2008,11)
Since press releases can have the opportunity to become a tool for companies as either
informative and or promotional information, they can be categorized as a “hybrid genre”
Page 17
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
18
(Catenaccio 2008, 11). Although Domino’s mainly used YouTube as platform to inform its
stakeholders,thesub-genreofsoftwaregenres,wehaveconsideredtheYouTubestatementtobe
includedinthepressreleasegenreforthisthesisaswemainlyanalyzeitasawrittenstatement.
2.4.1.4 Questionnaire-BasedSurvey
Aquestionnaire-based survey to collect a part of primary data has been chosen. In social
sciences, questionnaires are one of themost commonly usedmethods to grasp and comprehend
howsocietiesworkwhiletestingtheories(Grovesetal.2004,3).Conductingaquestionnaire-based
survey, we believe, will give the best opportunity to attain a wide variety of respondents’
perspectives. As each, Chipotle’s and Domino’s, crisis took place in the United States, an online
questionnairewas chosen tobe able to access sampling frame.Although a focus group interview
mighthavebeenmoreapplicableinsomeinstances,e.g.itwouldhaveallowedustogofurtherin-
depthtounderstandhowstakeholdersperceiveandareaffectedbyafoodsafetycrisis.Itwasnot
chosen partially because of limits related to location during research. Access to individuals who
wouldbeabletoqualifyforaninterviewislimitedbecausethereisnoChipotleinDenmark;eachof
thecrisestookplaceintheUnitedStates,whichmadeitinapplicabletouseDanes.
In addition, the questionnaire was conducted online using a website called SurveyXact,
access provided by Aalborg University. Questionnaires operated online can provide new
opportunities,forexampleinthiscircumstancebeinglocatedinEuropewhilestudyinganAmerican
brand.Conductinganonline surveyalsoprovides theopportunity to“reduce the largeamountof
humanresourcesneededtoconductsurveys”(Grovesetal.2004,7).Althoughnotallonlinesurveys
are fitting forall researchprojects,webelieve thisoption for this thesis isanapplicable tool.The
advantagesofconductingaquestionnairecanbeanythingfromlowcost,quickanddirectdataentry
toawidegeographicalreach.Thegeographicalreachistheprimemotiveforchoosingthisformof
data collecting for this thesis. Disadvantages of choosing a questionnaire can be the reliance on
software, lackofknowledgeofwho isrespondingand lackofaccesstodigdeeper (SueandRitter
2007,10).Forthissurvey,the linkwaspostedfromSuveryXacttoone individuals’9Facebookpage
whoisfromtheUnitedStates,andthereforebasinganAmericannetworkfromwhichtodrawfrom.
Friends,acquaintancesandfamilywereabletorespondashernetworkexpandsacrosstheUnited
States. Furthermore, thequestionnaire-basedsurveywasalso shared indifferentnetworkgroups,
whichwerenotconnectedtothe individual,encouragingpeopletosharethesurveyontheirown
Facebookpages.Thus,thisresultedinresponsesfromawidepoolofrespondents.“Socialmediais
9ThesurveywaspostedononeoftheauthorsofthisthesisFacebookpage.
Page 18
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
19
hencecalled‘theworld’slargestfocusgroup’”(Parketal.2012,283),andthisiswhywechoseto
sharethesurveylinkonFacebooktoappealtoasmanypeopleaspossible.
For thequestionnaire, 18questionswere composedpertaining toboth companies’ crises.
The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix 3. As a survey is created to collect
information,thegoalindoingsowastodesignaquestionnairethatwasableto“effectivelyaccess
employeeorcustomerattitudes,reactions,perceptions,anddemographics”(Rogelberg1997,752).
Whiledesigninganonlinequestionnaire,authorsof“ConductingOnlineSurveys”,ValerieM.
SueandLoisA.Ritter(2007)recommendthefollowingstepstocreatingandconductingasurvey.In
addition, we will incorporate the work of Saris and Gallhofer (2007) “Design, Evaluation, and
AnalysisofQuestionnairesforSurveyResearch”.
1) Defineobjectives
Inthisfirststep,itissuggestedtochooseatopicthatwillreflectontheresearchproblem(s).
Whiledefiningtheobjectiveofone’ssurvey,therearetwobasicchoices,thosebeing,descriptiveor
explanatory studies in regards to choosing to conduct experimental ornon-experimental research
(SueandRitter2012,1-2).Descriptiveresearchcanbedefinedasthefirstresearchconductedona
hypothetical or theoretical idea whereas exploratory research lays the groundwork for future
studies.Descriptiveresearchiswhereresearchershopetoinvestigateandenlightenonatopicwhile
beingabletoprovideadditionalinformation(SueandRitter2012,1-2).Forthisthesisandthrough
the survey research, the intent is to discover and explain individual’s responses to food safety
incidentsandthetwocompanies’,ChipotleandDomino’s,brands.
Forthequestionnaire-basedsurvey,weasked18questionsfortherespondents.Wewanted
to askof bothChipotle’s andDomino’s crises in the same survey insteadofmaking two separate
ones,aswebelievethiscouldbeinconvenientfortherespondents.Oursolutionwastodividethe
survey infivesmallparts; firstpartbeingquestionsaboutdemographicalbackground,secondpart
aboutrespondents’relationshiptosocialmediaandfoodviolationsingeneral,thirdpartconcerning
Chipotle,fourthpartconcerningDomino’sandthelastpartbeingabouttherespondents’opinions
towardsfoodsafetyviolationsandoutbreaksingeneralandfastfoodchains.
Thethreefirstquestions,being“howoldareyou?”,“wheredoyoulive?”and“what isthe
highest level of education you have completed?”, were asked to gain knowledge about the
respondents demographic background.Wewanted to know the age of the respondents to see if
there were any correlations between their age and what they answered. We asked to the
respondents’ location, as we wanted to ensure that the respondents live in the United States.
Furthermore,wewantedtoassessifcorrelationbetweentheirlocationandtheoutbreaklocations
Page 19
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
20
ofbothChipotleandDomino’shadanyrelationshiptotheresponseofthequestions.Thequestion
about education was to gain knowledge about the respondents’ background, but after we have
conductedthesurvey,wearguethatthisquestionmightnothavebeennecessary.
Thenexttwoquestions,“Howoftendoyouusesocialmedia?”and“Howimportantisfood
safety to you?” were asked because we wanted to know the respondents’ general opinions and
informationaboutthesetopics.Morespecificallyitwastodefineifrespondentsusesocialmedia,to
defendthatsocialmediaisatopicofinterestinregardstobeingusedasachannelutilizedforcrisis
communicationfororganizationsandtodefineifrespondentsconsiderthetopicoffoodsafetytobe
apriority.
Thenext sixquestionsall concernedChipotle’s situation. “DoyoueatatChipotleMexican
Grill?”–weaskedthisquestionbecausewewantedtoknowhowmanyoftherespondentsactually
eat at Chipotle. Next we asked “Are you aware of the following?” (being E. Coli, Norovirus and
Salmonella),andthiswastodefineifrespondentshaveheardaboutthedifferenttypesofoutbreaks
thatChipotlehadduringtheperiodofthecrisisandtoseeifitwasacertaintypeoftheoutbreaks
people had heard about. “Why do you eat at Chipotle?”, this questionwas followed by different
options to choose fromandalsowith theopportunity towritea reply.Thiswas toexaminewhat
madeormakepeopleeatatChipotleandmaybethiswayseehowtheyfeelaboutthebrandand
whichwordsrespondentsattributetoChipotle.Nextweasked,“DidyouhearaboutChipotle’sfood
safetyviolations/outbreaks in2015-early2016?” followedby“Ifansweredyes,HOWdidyouhear
abouttheChipotlefoodcrisis?”.Thiswastodefine ifthe individualhadheardofthisspecificcrisis
andtoallowrespondentstofurtherexpresshowtheyheardaboutthecrisisspecificallyastofindif
socialmediawasanoutletthattheyheardaboutthecrisis.ThelastquestionregardingChipotlewas
“Didtheseoutbreaks/violationsaffectyourchoiceofeatingatChipotle?Why-Whynot?”Thiswasto
define if respondentswere affectedby theoutbreaks, and towhat level that theywere affected.
Also,allowingforrespondentstofurtherexpresstheirreasoningbehindtheirindividualanswer.
The five following question concerned Domino’s. The questions and the reasons behind
themare verymuch alike thequestions in the above-mentionedparagraph aboutChipotle aswe
were very aware of asking the questions regarding the two companies in the sameway to avoid
makinganydifferencethatcouldaffecttherespondents’wayofreplyingtothequestionnaire-based
survey.ThesamequestionswereaskedaboutDomino’s,“DoyoueatatDomino’sPizza?”,“Whydo
youeatatDomino’s?”,“DidyouhearaboutDomino’sfoodsafetyviolationoutbreaksin2009?”,“If
answered yes, HOW did you hear about Domino’s food crisis?” and finally, “Did these
outbreaks/violations affect your choice of eating at Domino’s?Why-Why not?”. The reasons for
askingthesequestionsarethesameasintheabove-mentionedparagraph,andwethereforeseeno
Page 20
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
21
reasontorepeat them.However,wenowbelieve for thequestion,“DidyouhearaboutDomino’s
food safety violation outbreaks in 2009?”, we should have asked by giving a small description of
whathadhappenedin2009aswebelievemoreindividualswouldhaverememberedtheincident.
Thelastpartofthesurveyconsistedoftwoquestions.Thefirstbeing“Ifyouheardaboutthe
health violationoroutbreakatany fast food chain,would thataffect yourdecision toeat there?”
becausewewantedtoknowtherespondents’opinionsregardinghealthandfoodsafetyissuesand
outbreaks. We also wanted to examine what the respondents’ thought of it in general without
mentioningaspecificfoodchainallowingtherespondentstoexpressthemselvesingeneral.Thelast
questionweaskedwas“Whatwordsdoyouapplytofastfoodchains?”,providingtherespondents
with14differentwordstochoosefrom.Wewantedtogainknowledgeabouthowpeopleperceive
fastfoodchainsingeneral.Thereasonwhyweprovidedalistofwordstochoosefromwastocreate
a varietyof responses for respondents to choose from togive thebestpossible viewof fast food
chains.
2) Chooseasamplingframeandvariables
As mentioned previously, the sampling frame is individuals located in the United States
becausethecriseshappenedintheUnitedStates.Also,individualsmusthaveaccesstotheInternet
asthesurveyisconductedonline.
Therearetwodifferentapproachesthatcanbeusedwhenchoosingasamplingframeand
variables:descriptiveorexploratory.Whenconductingadescriptive study, thechoiceof variables
wouldbedependentonthepurposeofthestudy.Whereasinanexploratorystudy,onemustcreate
“aninventoryofpossibleclausesandtodevelopfromthatlistapreliminarymodelthatindicatesthe
relationships between the variables of interest” (Saris and Gallhofer 2007, 5). Variables in an
exploratorystudyareopeningnewtopicswhereasthedescriptivefocusesonthedirectrelationship
ofthestudy(SueandRitter2012,2).Thepurposeofthisstudyistodiscovertheeffectsthateach
crisis had on Chipotle’s and Domino’s stakeholders, therefore a descriptive approachwas chosen
becausenonewtopicswereselectedasmentionedabove.
3) Designdatacollectionstrategy
ThewebsitesurveyservicecalledSurveyXactwasutilizedtocollectdataastheInternetwas
thebestmeanstobeabletoaccessrespondents;accesswasavailableviaAalborgUniversity.When
choosingthedatacollectionstrategy,itisrecommendedtotakeintoaccountofcosts,thequestion
formulation one creates and the quality of data received. Cost was not a factor, as Aalborg
Universityprovides the surveyplatform. Lastly, in conductinganonline survey thequalityofdata
Page 21
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
22
wasrecognizedthroughthelimitationsofhowindepthasurveycanbe.Togainrespondentsforthis
survey,theplatformFacebookwasselectedtoensurethattherewasawidevarietyofrespondents.
Throughthedatacollectionofthesurvey,wereceived211responses.
4) DevelopQuestionnaire
SurveyXact’s setup and structure provides options that allow the ability to customize
preferences. The questions were created with intent to be able to acquire knowledge of the
respondents’ attitudes, reactions and perceptions of each brandwithout leading participants in a
certainkindofdirection.Thiswillbecombinedwithindividual’scommentsfromnewsmedia,being
newsarticlesandsegments.
Whendevelopingeachsurveyquestion,therewereseveralprocessestoconsider(Sarisand
Gallhofer2007,4).Thefirstdecisiontobemadeisthesubjectanddimensionofthequestion.Asa
researcher,onecouldberequiredtochoosethesubjectanddimensionofwhattoevaluateforeach
individualquestion.Forexample, inthissurvey,questionnumberfiveasks“Howimportant isfood
safetytoyou?”.Thesubjectofthesentenceisfoodsafety,andwhat isbeingevaluatedistowhat
degreefoodsafetyisimportanttothem(SarisandGallhofer2007,6).
After deciding the subject and dimension of one’s question, the question should be
formulated(SarisandGallhofer2007,7).Othervariationsofthisquestioncouldhavebeen:“Please
tellmeiffoodsafetyisimportanttoyou,”“NowIwouldliketoaskyouiffoodsafetyisimportantto
you”,and lastly, “Doyouagree that foodsafety is important?”.Therearemany formulations that
onecanchoose,andthechoiceisimportantbecauseitaffectstheoutcomeoftheresponse.Asseen
inobjectives (pp. 19-21), thequestion chosen leads to the response choiceof choosing a level of
how important the subject is to the respondent. If asked, “Is food safety important?”, thiswould
leadtoayes/noanswer-thisisthethirddecisiontomakewhencreatingaquestion.
The fourth decision one should consider is additional text thatmay be beneficial for the
respondent,suchasanintroduction,extrainformation,definitions, instructions,oramotivationto
answer(SarisandGallhofer2007,8).Forthisquestionnaire-basedsurvey,ashortexplanationofour
motivationsforconductingthesurveywasincluded;“Thankyouforparticipatinginoursurvey!This
survey is being conducted for a Master Thesis project concerning health violations and
communication.Webelieve this surveywillonly take5minutesor less tocomplete” (Appendix4).
Wearguethatitisimportanttohaveasmallexplanationpresentedbeforetherespondentsfillout
thesurvey,thentherespondentsareawareofwhatthesurveyisaboutandwhytheyarefilling it
out. Also included is information about how long itwould take to fill out the survey. Thiswas to
Page 22
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
23
motivate and inform the respondents, maybe increasing the amount of responses by letting the
respondentsknowhowlongitwouldtaketocompleteit.
5) Collectdata
Beforecollectinganyofficialdata,itisrecommendedtotestthequalityofthequestionnaire
asitisimportanttoensurethatthequestionsyouhavecreatedareunderstandable,andthatyour
motivations foreachquestionwillbemeasured (SueandRitter2007,9).Thequestionnaire-based
survey was presented in a testing environment before being sent out. This testing environment
involvedfellowpeers, friendsandfamily.Thesurveywastestedonrespondentswhomayalready
haveknowledgeandpre-understandingofwhatisbeingstudiedandalsorespondentswhohaveno
previousexperienceswiththesubjects.Thiswastomakesurethatthequestionswereunderstood
byvariouspeople.
6) Managedata
Managingdatacanbeachallenge,andthebiggestchallengecouldbetheconfidentialityof
information, as conducting an online questionnaire requires addressing confidentiality differently
than traditionalmethods (SueandRitter2007,6).For this survey, the information isnotsensitive
information, but of course, all responses were treated confidentially, meaning that the data
collectedandreferencedissolelyusedforthisthesis.
7) AnalyzeData
Sue and Ritter (2007) specify that when using an online-host for a survey, some hosts
providetheresearcherwithseveraloptionstodescribeone’sstatistics.Theseonlinehostsalsogive
a researcher theoption todownload thedatasoonecanrefrain fromcomputing thestatisticsby
hand, however, one is still required to interpret the results (Sue and Ritter 2007, 139). With
SurveyXactonecanchoosebetweendifferentgraphtypese.g.apiechart.Forthisthesis,wewilluse
thebargraphstoshowthestatisticsfromthesurvey(Appendix3),andfortheanalysiswewillonly
usetheoverallpercentagesfromtheresponses.
Oneofthelimitationswhenconductingasurveyisthattheanswers(thedata)areanalyzed
by humans, typically by the individuals who conducted the survey in the first place. There is no
computerprogramfoundthatcanhelpindividualstoanalyzethegivenanswerswhentheanswers
arequalitativewrittenanswers (SarisandGallhofer2007,V). For this thesis, therecouldbea risk
because we manage the data and the risk of bias through analysis. It is argued that as long as
Page 23
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
24
awarenessofthisfacttogetherwiththefactthatthiskindofdataalwaysisconnectedwiththerisk
oftoomuchsubjectivity,thistypeofdatacollectionisvalidforthisthesis.
Another challenge could be the risk of asking leading questions, rather than asking open
questions, allowing the respondent to answer in his or her own way. It is argued that another
limitationcouldbethatonecannotcontrolthenumberofrespondentsnortheamountofanswers,
aswellasthequalityoftheanswers.
Furthermore, we acknowledge that one cannot rely solely on the information conducted
fromasurvey.Thedatagatheredtocreateapictureofwhatandhowsomepeoplemightperceive
bothDomino’sandChipotleasabrand,thoughtsaboutfoodsafetyissuesandhowfoodviolations
mayaffect them.Thisdatawillbecombinedwithstakeholders’commentsandtweetsonTwitter,
Facebook,newsarticlesandsegments.
2.4.1.5 PressReleasesCollectionandLimitations
In the first part of the analysis, the press releases from each companywere chosen. For
Chipotle, itwaspossibletofindthewrittendocumentson itswebsite,underthe InvestorRelation
page,and fromthereuse the informationasdata.Fivepress releases,oneannual reportandone
letterfromtheCo-CEO,SteveElls,havebeencollectedfortheanalysis.ForDomino’spressreleases
duringthegivencrisis,wewereunabletofindtextualdocumentsonline.Therefore,inreplacement,
wechosetoincludeonepressreleasetranscribedfromapicturefromawebsite(Appendix12)and
videostatementsthatwerestillaccessibletoday.
WhilecollectingdataforDomino’sitwasdifficulttofindandaccountforeverystatementit
hadpublished in 2009as the company’swebsitedataonlydatesback to2012and therefore,we
could not find the 2009 press releases (Domino’s 2012 press, n.d.). We attempted to contact
Domino’sbyemail(Appendix14)toreceivethedatafromthesourceitself,butthecompanyhasnot
answeredback. Therefore,wehavebeen compelled to search the Internet forpress releasesand
statements to try tomakea timeline and thereby anoutlineofwhathappened inDomino’s case
backin2009(Appendix2).WeareawarethattherearerisksinvolvedwhenusingtheInternetasa
source,butwearguethatwehavebeenverycriticalandensuredtodouble-checksources.
According a website called BrianSolis, Domino’s send out a statement April 14, 2009
(BrianSolis,2009)viaitswebsite(Appendix12)andanewssegmentvideoonYouTube(transcribed
inAppendix23)confirms this.Wesee thisasDomino’s first response to thecrisis.April15,2009,
Domino’spublisheditssecondofficialstatementtothepublic,twodaysafterthenotionofthevideo
publishedonYouTubebytwoemployeesfromaDomino’slocatedinNorthCarolina.Thisstatement
Page 24
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
25
wasmadebyPatrickDoyle,thePresidentofUSAOperationsatDomino'sandpublishedonYouTube
asavideo(Appendix13).
Weareawarethatthestatementsonline isnotthesamegenreasapressrelease,butfor
thisthesisitwillbeusedsoincomparisontoChipotle’spressreleases,annualreportandletterasit
istheformofstatementDomino’spublished.Furthermore,wecannotfindtheofficialstatementon
Domino’sownYouTubeaccount–theoldestvideopublishedbyDomino’sonitsYouTubeaccountis
fromDecember21,2009(Domino’sYouTube,2009).Therefore,wehavetranscribedacopyofthe
originalpressstatementfoundonYouTubepublishedApril18,2009(Domino’sPresidentResponds
to Prank Video, 2009). The transcription can be found inAppendix 13. For this thesis,wewill be
referring to the video as a statement. We have included an overview of the press releases and
statementsfromChipotleandDomino’sbelow.
Chipotle’sPressReleases/AnnualReport/CEOLetter
Appendix
FirstPressRelease:November3,2015
“ChipotleMovesAggressivelytoAddressIssuesinWashingtonandOregon”
5
SecondPressRelease:November10.2015
“ChipotletoReopenNorthwestRestaurants”
6
ThirdPressRelease:November20.2015
“ChipotleUpdate’sonE.ColiInvestigation
7
FourthPressRelease:December4,2015
“ChipotleCommitstoBecomeIndustryLeaderinFoodSafety”
8
FifthPressRelease:January19,2016
“New Chipotle Food Safety Procedures Largely in Place; Company will share
Learningsfrom2015OutbreaksatAll-TeamMeeting”
9
FourthQuarterAnnualReport:February2,2016
“Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Announces Fourth quarter and Full Year 2015
Results, CDC Investigation Over; Chipotle Welcomes Customers Back to
Restaurants”
10
CEOLetter:December16,2015
“ALetterfromFounderSteveElls:ComprehensiveFoodSafetyPlan”
11
Page 25
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
26
Domino’sStatements
Appendix
FirstPressStatement:April14,2009”UpdatetoourValuedCustomers”
12
YouTubeVideoStatement:April15,2009”Domino’sPresidentRespondsToPrankVideo”
13
2.4.1.6 SocialMediaCollectionandLimitations
Whencollectingsocialmediapostsandtweetsonline,allpublishedbyeachcompanyonthe
dayofthecrisiswereforemost.ForChipotle,asthereweremultipleincidents,therewasmoresocial
mediastatementsasdata incomparisontoDomino’s.Themain focus tool forsocialmedia in this
thesisisTwitterandFacebook.Toanalyzetheopinionsofstakeholders,datawascollectedfromthe
companies’ social media accounts focusing on statements and comments made by stakeholders
duringthecrisesperiods.
Since communication on these two platforms is almost limitless, for the collection of
Chipotle’ssocialmediastatements,wehavechosentofocusonthecontentonthedays(following
theoutlineonp.7,Appendix1)thatitpublishedpressreleasesonitswebsiteinregardstotheon-
goingcrisiswithfoodsafetyviolations.Inaddition,wehavealsochosentoincludepostsandtweets
fromdays surrounding the initial start of each individual outbreak on Facebook and Twitter from
Chipotle’s accounts. Since social media platforms are interchangeable and one is able to share
informationonasocialmediaplatformwithanother,someofthecompany’spostsandtweetsare
thesameasitissuggestedthat,“thesocialmediaapproachofcompaniesshouldbehandledasan
integrated strategy. If marketers use them independently, they are not able to reach the highest
possibleamountofinfluenceandattentionwiththeirmarketingstrategyormaysendcontradictory
messages” (Horn et al. 2015, 201). Furthermore, as an abundance amount of people are able to
comment on these statements, we have selected a variety of comments on Chipotle’s posts and
tweetstoaccompanyananalysisonChipotle’scrisiscommunicationstrategy.
According to Park et al., we found that by April 15, 2009, Domino’s created a Twitter
accountnamed@dpzinfo(Parketal.2012,283)andweassumethatDomino’screatedaFacebook
accountaroundthesametimeinApril.WecannotfindaspecificdateforwhenDomino’screatedits
Facebook account, but the earliest postwe can find on the company’s Facebook account is from
April 19, 2009 (Domino’s Facebook, 2016 and Appendix 17, 1.). We will look at a selection of
Domino’spostsonFacebookwithintheperiodofApril19toDecember30,2009andstakeholders’
tweetsonTwitterwithintheperiodofApril13toApril20,2009.Wehavebeenablefindtheposts
Page 26
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
27
made by Domino’s on its own Facebook page by scrolling down the page, and we have thereby
selectedsixpostswithappertainingcomments fromstakeholders. Itwas impossible forus to find
tweetsmadebyDomino’s in thesame timeperiodas statedabove–however,weuse secondary
datafromajournalbyParketal.fromtheAssociationfortheAdvancementofArtificialIntelligence
ConferenceonWeblogsandSocialMediafrom2012(Parketal.2012).Thisjournalisacasestudyon
Domino’scrisis in2009withTwitterasthemainfocusbecause“fromthebeginningtotheendthe
mediumplayeda central role in spreadingboth thebadnewsand theapology” (Parket al. 2012,
282). The authors behind the journal have analyzed a total of 20,773 tweets from stakeholders
regardingDomino’s (Parketal.2012,283)andhaveused thisdata toconductseveral figuresand
tables (p. 84 and 85). Furthermore, the authors have selected some specific examples of these
tweets, they have “sampled a total of 860 Twitter conversations from two peak times: 395 from
3:00-4:00,April, 15th,when the videoprankby theemployees spread,and465 from20:00-21:00,
April 16th,when theDomino’s President released an apology video in YouTube” (Park et al. 2012,
287).Fromthecollectedtweets,Parketal.excludedatotalof117tweetsbecausethetweetswere
irrelevant;somewerenotaboutDomino’s,butreferredtoasoftwareproduct,somewerewrittenin
non-Englishandsometweetswerenotrelatedtothecrisis,eventhoughtheywereaboutDomino’s
(Parketal.2012,287-288).Wealsowillusethesedataandsomespecificexamplesoftweets(Park
etal.2012,287-289).
When collecting social media comments from stakeholders from both company’s the
selection of data included comments from stakeholders on the original post fromeach company,
commentsonChipotle’stweetsandtweetsfromDomino’sstakeholders.Sincethereisanenormous
volumeofcommentsonthecompany’ssocialmediaaccounts,itisimpossibleforustoincludeevery
comment. Therefore, we have selected comments from stakeholders with a broad aspect of
opinionstopresentbothcaseswiththebroadestrangeofthestakeholders’perspectives.Duetothe
latter,wehaveselectedandcollectedthisdataourselveswhichcouldbeconnectedwithariskof
beingsubjective.Wearguethatwecannotavoidbeingsubjectiveaswechoose theposts, tweets
andcomments,howeverwehavechosenawidevarietyofcommentstopresentthecaseswiththe
broadest viewandwehave collectedposts and tweets alignedwith the twooutlines (p. 7 and8,
Appendix1and2).
Chipotle’sSocialMediaData Appendix
TwitterData 15
FacebookData 16
Page 27
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
28
Domino’sSocialMediaData Appendix
FacebookData 17
TwitterData(Parketal.2012) None
2.4.1.7 NewsArticlesCollectionandLimitations
When collecting news articles, itwas possible to find articles relevant to Chipotle’s crisis.
Focusing on the time that each press release was published (following the outline at p. 7 and
Appendix 1), included are four articles to supplement the analysis. In Domino’s case, we have
selected two newsmedia segments from YouTube. The first video is called “Dirty Dirty Dominos
pizza”andthesecondoneiscalled“DominosPizzaontheTodayShow–WorkersfiredforDominos
prankvideo”.ThefirstvideoisuploadedApril15,2009onanaccountcalled“Ramox3’schannel”and
has received1,351,507viewsand2,263comments (DirtyDirtyDominospizza,2009). Thesecond
video isuploadedApril17,2009onanaccountcalled“nautques4ever”andthevideohas486,673
viewsand554comments(DominosPizzaontheTodayShow,2009).SimilartotheYouTubevideoin
thepress releaseandstatement section,whenusing thedata for theanalysis thenewssegments
willprimarilyfocusonthelanguageusedbythenewsanchorsasifitwasatext.Weareawarethat
thevideosarecopiesfromtheoriginalbroadcasts,aswecouldnotfindtheoriginalsource,weargue
thatthesearevalidsourcesastheyonlyshowtheoriginalbroadcastswithoutinformationaddedor
edited.WehavetranscribedthetwovideosandtheycanbefoundinAppendix22and23.
When collecting the comments from stakeholders, the comments from the news articles
concerningChipotle’scrisiswerefewerthantheamountofcommentsDomino’stwonewssegments
had.Webelievethis isduetoYouTubebeingasocialmediaplatformencouragingstakeholdersto
comment.WhencollectingthecommentsontheYouTubenewssegments,thecollectionincludesa
selectionofcomments ranging from2009,whenthecrisiswaspresent to today in2016.As there
wasanendlessamountofcommentsontheYouTubevideos,fivetosixcommentswerecollectedon
eachvideotopresentabroadviewof thecrisis.TheselectionofcommentsontheChipotlenews
articleswere slightly limited in comparison to thevideos,nonetheless, five to six commentswere
collectedoneacharticletopresentthecase.Following,anoutlineofthecollectedarticlesandnews
segmentsusedfordataarepresented.
Page 28
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
29
NewsOnlineArticles(Chipotle) AppendixFirstArticle:September4,2015“SoCalChipotleLinkedtoNorovirusOutbreakAffectingNearly100People”
18
SecondArticle:October31,2015“E.Colisickensatleast22peoplewhoateatChipotleinOregonandWashington”
19
ThirdArticle:December4,2015“ChipotleVowstoTightenFoodSafetyStandardsinwakeofE.ColiCases”
20
FourthArticle:February1,2016“E.ColiOutbreaksatChipotleRestaurants‘AppearToBeOver,’CDCsays”
21
NewsArticleComments 22NewsSegments(Domino’s) AppendixFirstVideo:April15,2009“DirtyDirtyDominosPizza”
23
SecondVideo:April17,2009“Domino’sPizzaontheTodayShow-WorkersfiredfromDomino’sprankvideo”
24
NewsSegmentComments 25
2.5 AnalyticalApproach
Inthisthesis,theanalysiswillbeconductedinthreelevels.Forthefirstpart,wewillanalyze
pressreleasesandstatementsfrombothChipotleandDomino’s.WewilluseFairclough’stheoryof
Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth, CDA) to look at the different language in the documents.
Furthermore, Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory (henceforth, SCCT) and Benoit’s
Image Repair Theorywill also be used. This is to analyze how the two companies communicated
duringthecrisesandwhichcommunicativestrategiestheymighthaveused.Wewillendthispart
withasummarywherewesummaryofthefindingsandcomparethemtoeachother. Inaddition,
wewillalsousethetheoryofMassey’sorganizationalimagemanagementinordertotrytoexamine
ifthechosenstrategiesmighthaveworked.
The second part of the analysis consists of a collection of social media statements from
ChipotleandDomino’s.WehavechosentofocusonFacebookandTwitter,aswebelievetheseare
the twomost importantplatforms inbothof thecompany’scrisiscommunicationregardingsocial
media.WewillrefertostatementsmadeonFacebookaspostsandstatementsonTwitterastweets.
InChipotle’scase,wewillanalyzetweetsandpostsmadebythecompanyitselfandwewillalsolook
atthecompany’sstakeholders’commentsontweetsandposts.RegardingDomino’s,wewillanalyze
posts posted by the company and we will look at different comments made by stakeholders.
Page 29
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
30
Unfortunately,wewerenotabletofindanytweetsfromthecompanyitself,therefore,wewillonly
focus on stakeholders’ tweets in regards to Domino’s appearance on Twitter. In this part of the
analysis,wewilluseCoombs’andBenoit’scrisiscommunicationtheoriestoanalyzewhichstrategies
thetwocompaniesmighthaveusedintheircommunicationonTwitterandFacebook.Furthermore,
we will use CDA to look at the different language used by stakeholders in their comments and
tweetstoanalyzewhatandhowtheymightperceivethetwodifferentbrands.Inaddition,wewill
also present some of the findings from the conducted questionnaire-based survey (Appendix 3).
When reproducing these quotes from Facebook, Twitter, and the conducted survey, they are
incorporatedwithanyspelling,grammarandothererrorsfromtheoriginalsourcesintotheanalysis.
Inthelastpartoftheanalysis,wewillanalyzehowDomino’sandChipotlewereportrayedin
themediain2009and2015/2016.Therefore,wewillanalyzeaselectionofnewsarticlesandnews
segmentsregardingChipotleandDomino’scrisesfollowingthetwooutlinesfoundonpage7and8
andinAppendix1and2.InChipotle’scase,wewillusefournewsarticlesfromdifferentnewsmedia
andinDomino’scase,wehavechosentofocusontwonewssegmentspublishedonYouTube.We
also want to analyze peoples’ reactions and comments in relation to that. We have selected
different comments to represent both negative and positive comments regarding the two
companies–thesecanbefoundinAppendix22and25.Inthispartoftheanalysis,wewillbeusing
CDAtolookatthedifferentlinguisticselections.
Overall,intheanalysisregardingBenoit’sImageRepairTheoryandCoombs’SCCT,thereare
agreatamountofstrategiesandsub-strategies/categories.Wehavemadeoverviewsofbothofthe
theories onpage45-46 and48. Furthermore, to assist the readers,wewill throughout the entire
analysisuseaboldfonttostressthestrategiesandwewillunderlinethesub-strategies/categories.
Thisistocreateanoverviewforthereadersandtoputemphasisonthestrategiesused.
3. TheoreticalFramework
This sectionwill provide an overview of concepts and theories relevant to answering the
problem statement in this thesis. First part of the theoretical section will be an explanation of
Fairclough’stheoryonCDA,whichwewillaccountforasananalytictool.
In thesecondpart,differentdefinitionsandconceptsarepresented.First,wewillpresent
theconceptofpublicrelations(PR),asthisisanimportantconcepttounderstandbecauseweargue
ChipotleandDomino’sPRdepartmentswereresponsibleforthecrisiscommunicationduringeach
of the crises. Then a definition of corporate reputation and brand image and a definition of the
Internet and social media will follow. In addition to these concepts, we will also present the
Page 30
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
31
definition of an online firestorm, social media marketing and eWoM, as we believe these are
importantconceptstobeawareofwhenconductedthisthesis.
Inthethirdpartofthischapter,theconceptofcrisiscommunicationwillbepresented,asthis
cancontributetounderstandinghowChipotleandDomino’sreputationshavebeenaffectedbytheir
individual crises. Here, Coombs’ SCCT, Benoit’s Image Repair Theory andMassey’s Organizational
ImageManagementTheorywillbepresented.
.
3.1 CriticalDiscourseAnalysis
Critical Discourse Analysis will be used in order to try to give an understanding of the
discourses constructing Domino’s and Chipotle’s organizational reputations, and in an attempt to
examine how these different discourses might influence the two companies’ reputations. First
presentedwill be an explanation of the broad understanding of CDA and then, a presentation of
Fairclough’stheoryregardingCDA,hisviewsonthis,andincludinganoutlineFairclough’sconcrete
modelofanalysis.
Discourse analysis can be seen as a vague term, and “discourse analysis is not just one
approach, but a series of interdisciplinary approaches that can be used to exploremany different
socialdomains inmanydifferent typesof studies” (JørgensenandPhillips2002,1). Jørgensenand
Phillips’ broaddefinition of discourse is “a particularway of talking about and understanding the
world (oranaspectof theworld)” (JørgensenandPhillips2002,1), and it is thisdefinition that is
relevantthroughoutthisthesis.
CDA’smainfocusisontherelationshipsbetweendiscourseassocialactionandotherfacets
of social life (Edwards2013,226); inotherwordsCDA“allows contextual factors tobe taken into
account when analyzing text” (Edwards 2013, 226). Furthermore, CDA is interested in the
connection between language and power where relationships such as institutional, political and
mediadiscoursesare important(WodakandMeyer2002,1-2).CDAisnotonlyfocusedonwritten
andspokentexts; it isalso focusedon“atheorizationanddescriptionofboththesocialprocesses
andstructureswhichgiverisetotheproductionofatext,andofthesocialstructuresandprocesses
withinwhich individualsorgroupsassocialhistoricalsubjects,createmeanings intheir interaction
withtexts”(WodakandMeyer2002,3).
According to Meyer and Wodak, “The subjects under investigation differ for the various
departments and scholars who apply CDA. Gender issues, issues of racism, media discourses or
dimensions of identity research have become very prominent” (Wodak and Meyer 2002, 3). This
thesiswillmainlyfocusonmediadiscourses.
Page 31
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
32
AccordingtoFairclough,CDAcanbeusedasatoolinordertoanalyze,criticizeandmaybe
even change the social reality (Fairclough 2014, 4).Wewill in this thesis use CDA to look at the
discoursesassocialpracticesthatshapethereputationsofbothDomino’sandChipotle.Wewilldo
so through various articles, press releases and statements presented in themethodology section,
researchmethodanddatacollection2.4.1.
Faircloughalsoarguesthatisitimpossibletojustanalyzeonetextandthenunderstandthe
wholecontext.Here, it is importantto lookat itasaprocesswherethere isadevelopment inthe
texts, context to context. Regarding this thesis, the context will shift between both Chipotle and
Domino’s statements, to the various media platforms and the comments. This is a continuing
discourse, and here the analyst(s) can change between interpretation, evaluation, critique and
explanation(Fairclough2014,7).
In1989,themainfocusofFairclough’stheorywasthreelevelsofsocialconditions.Thefirst
level is ”the level of social situation, or the immediate social environment in which the discourse
occurs” (Fairclough 1989, 25). The next level is ”the level of social institutionwhich constitutes a
wider matrix for the discourse” (Fairclough 1989, 25). The last level is “the level of society as a
whole” (Fairclough 1989, 25). To draw further on that, Fairclough argues that there are three
varioussensesinrelationtoCDA,“(1)meaningmakingasanelementofthesocialprocess,(2)the
languageassociatedwithaparticularsocialfieldorpractice(e.g.,‘politicaldiscourse’),and(3)away
ofconstruingaspectsoftheworldassociatedwithaparticularsocialperspective”(Fairclough2013,
179). This could also be referred to as Fairclough’s model of discourse as text, interaction and
context;
(Fairclough1989,25)
Page 32
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
33
Furthermore, Fairclough’s viewof CDA stems fromnormative critique,which is related to
explanatorycritique (Fairclough2014,10-11). It is referred toasnormativecritiquewhen“itdoes
not simply describe existing realities but also evaluates them” (Fairclough 2013, 178), and it is
referredtoasexplanatorycritiquewhen“itdoesnotsimplydescribeandevaluateexistingrealities
butseekstoexplainthem”(Fairclough2013,178).
Faircloughalso states thatCDA consists of several different analyses: an interactional and
conversationalanalysis,analysisofarguments,narratives,explanationsand interdiscursivity,which
is a combination of discourse, genre and style analysis (Fairclough 2014, 39). An analysis of the
collectedarticles,pressreleasesandstatementsascontextualdata ispresented–therelationship
between the texts and their social conditions will be explored in an effort to determine the
reputationandimageofDomino’sandChipotle.
There are several of points of criticism related to CDA. Schegloff (1997) suggests that
analysts“shouldproducedescriptionoftextsfirst,andonlythenshouldcriticalanalysisbeconducted
…whicharisefromthebiasoftheresearcherratherthanfromthetextitself”(Blackledge2005,17).
Todrawfurtheronthat,apointofcriticismisalso“thedangersofbiasinCDA,asresearchersmay
start fromaparticular ideological position, then select for analysis only those textswhich support
thisposition”(Blackledge2005,17).
It could be argued that it would be almost impossible to avoid this bias as we, in this
instance, already have a pre-understanding of a given case, relative to Chipotle’s and Domino’s
imageandreputation.Wehaveselectedtextsaspointedoutintheabove-mentionedcriticism–but
wearguethat thissubjectivitycannotbeavoided100percent.Wehavebeenawareof thispitfall
when selectingand collectingdata for theanalysiswitheveryofficial documentand text that are
connectedtothetwocasesi.e.ChipotleandDomino’s.
3.2 TheConceptofPublicRelations
Public relations, also known as PR, is an ”aspect of communications involving the relations
betweenanentitysubjecttoorseekingpublicattentionandthevariouspublicsthatareormaybe
interested in it” (Britannica Academic, n.d.). The given entity could, for example be a business
corporation, a politician, a religious organizationor any personor organization. Thepublics could
both be a very specific target group or an audience to the stakeholders of a certain company.
Furthermore,public relationscoversawide rangeofdisciplines including“investor relations, crisis
management, internal communications, influencing government policy, and community relations”
(EhrlichandFanelli2012,75).
Page 33
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
34
Publicrelationscanalsobereferredtoasthe“meansofpositioningyourproductsorcompany
throughaperceivedthird-partyendorsement(…)Publicrelationsisoneofthemosteffectivemeans
ofshapingattitudesandbuildingcredibilityforyou,yourorganization,anditsproducts”(Ehrlichand
Fanelli2012,75).EhrlichandFanellialsoarguethattherehasbeenfurtherdevelopmentwithinthe
conceptanddefinitionofpublicrelationssincetheappearanceofnewusesoftheInternet.Now,it
isnotonlythetraditionaljournaliststhatcanhaveinfluence,EhrlichandFanellistatethatbloggers,
commentsonnewssitesande.g. tweetscanhaveahuge influence (EhrlichandFanelli2012,75).
Despitethisdevelopment,EhrlichandFanelliarguethattheprinciplesofpublicrelationsremainthe
same(EhrlichandFanelli2012,75).
Public relations can include e.g. press releases, brochures, background knowledge or fact
sheetsaboutagivencompanyorproducts,linkstowebsiteswheremoreinformationcanbefound,
YouTube videos etc. (Ehrlich and Fanelli 2012, 77). This thesis will explore public relations in
correlationwithcrisiscommunication,mainlyinrelationtopressreleasesandYouTubevideos.
3.3 DefinitionofCorporateReputationandBrandImage
Corporate reputation can be linked closely to stakeholder theory where organizational
management and ethics address the morals and values to managing an organization. Corporate
reputationgoesfurtherbyaddressingwhatacompanyconsistsof,whatitsaysitis,whatitisseen
as, what others see,what the brand stands for, what it should be and lastly, what the company
wishes to be (Carroll 2014, 4). On a broad scale, corporate reputation is defined as “a widely
circulated, oft-repeatedmessage ofminimal variation about an organization revealing something
abouttheorganization'snature”(Carroll2014,4).
Whendefiningcorporatereputation, it is importanttodiscusstheinterchangeabletermof
corporateidentity(Feldmanetal.2014,54).Thesedifferencescanbeseeninthechartbelow.
OrganizationalIdentity CorporateReputation
Stakeholders: Internal orexternal
Internal InternalandExternal
Perceptions:ActualorDesired Actual Actual
Emanating from the inside oroutsidethefirm
Inside Insideandoutside
Positive or negative perceptionofthefirmpossible
Positiveornegative Positiveornegative
Relevantquestion “Who/what dowe believeweare?
“Whatareweseentobe?”
(Feldmanetal.2014,54)
Page 34
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
35
This chart onpage34depicts organizational identity and imagebothoriginating from the
insidewherecorporate reputationemanates from the insideandoutsideof theorganization.The
three termsare categorizedby relevantquestionsasked tobetterunderstandwhateach concept
represents.
Theorganizationalidentityofacompanyismoreconcernedwiththe“whoarewe,andwhat
do we believe we are?” based upon the organizational culture (Feldman et al. 2014, 55).
Organizationalimageisalsoconstructedinternally,butitcontradictsorganizationalidentitythrough
thecorporateimagebyoperatingwithexternalstakeholderstoshapeandmaintaintheimageand
createan impressionof theorganizational identityatacertainpoint in time(Feldmanetal.2013,
55).
Asbothoftheseconceptsareconstructedthroughtheinsideoftheorganization,theyare
thereforecontrolledby theorganization.Corporate reputationbuildsandmaintains its imageand
identity over time in order to be able to expand from internal construction to a two-way
constructionofacorporationthroughinternalandexternalstakeholders.Imageandreputationofa
companyareinterrelatedduetothecorporatereputationbeingconceptualizedastheaccumulation
oftheorganization’simageovertime(Feldmanetal.2013,55).
Although corporate reputation is definedas amore stable concept than corporate image,
corporatereputationisusedasadynamicconceptasitisabletochangeovertimebecauseofthe
insideandoutsideenvironmentalchanges(Feldmenetal.2013,55).Ascompaniesarenotincontrol
ofwhatgoesonoutsideofthecompany’sboundaries,stakeholderscancreatetheirownopinions
throughinteractionwithmediaandopinionleadersasathird-partysource,whichcanbeachallenge
foracompany’sorganizationalreputation(Feldmanetal.2013,55).
Inthis thesis, reputation isperceivedwiththeunderstandingthatacompany isconstantly
buildingitsimage,whereastheimageofacompanyisseenasbeingconstructedontheoutsideas
the public view i.e., stakeholders. Because of the latter, the terms “reputation” and “image” are
used interchangeably (Feldman et al. 2013, 54) as “corporate reputation is a function of the
perceptionsandattitudestowarditheldbyindividualmembersofaparticularstakeholdergroup.A
reputationrestsonassessmentsmadebyindividualsoutsidetheorganization”(Burkeetal.2011,1).
Allinall,reputationisalong-termviewthatbuildsuponacompany’simageovertime,andimageis
ashort-termviewthathasthepotentialtobealteredbythepublic(BusinessDictionary,n.d.).
Page 35
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
36
3.4 DefinitionoftheInternetandSocialMedia
Inthissection,InternetandsocialmediawillbeaccountedforaswebelievetheInternetcan
nolongerbeconsideredasanewinventionandmostpeoplearecloselyfamiliarwiththeuseofit,
therewillnotbeafocusonthehistoryanddevelopmentoftheInternet.Rather,howandwhythe
Internetandsocialmediaareofsignificancetocrisiscommunicationwillbeexplored.
Weargue that socialmedia,as Internet-basedplatformsof social interactionofpeopleall
aroundtheworld,isarelativelynewphenomenon.Whenmentioningsocialmedia,somepeoplewill
immediatelythinkofapplicationssuchasFacebookandTwitter.Facebook,whileinitiallylaunchedin
2004, was not available to the general public until 2006, when Twitter also began its operations
(Digital Trends Staff, 2016). Today, these applications are ten years old, even so, more than 58
milliontweetsaresentonadailybasis,andasapopulationtheentiretyoftheFacebookuserbase
would rankas the third largestcountry in theworld (Luttrell2015,23and27).Withnumbers like
these,itisimpossibletodismisssocialmediaplatformsasunimportantforthisthesis.
Luttrell (2015) initially skips thecommondefinitionof socialmedia in favorof considering
themeaningbehindtheterm.Shebreaksthetermdownintoitstwoconstituentparts–socialand
media.Luttrellfindsthatsocialistheneedhumanbeingsfeeltoconnectwithotherpeople,aswell
as the desire to surround themselves with like-minded people, who share e.g. one’s ideals or
interests.Shefindsthatthis isalsotrueregarding individualswishingtoconnectand interactwith
companiesthattheysomehowcanrelatetoorinwhichwaywanttoaffiliate.Thenextpart,media,
refers to the channels throughwhich peoplemake these connectionswith other people (Luttrell
2015,21-23).Socialmediaiscommonlydefinedasreferringtothe:
“(...)activities,practices,andbehavioramongcommunitiesofpeoplewhogatheronlineto
share information, knowledge and opinions using conversational media. Conversational
mediaareweb-basedapplicationsthatmakeitpossibletocreateandeasilytransmitcontent
intheformofwords,pictures,video,andaudio.”(Luttrell2015,22)
Social media platforms include e.g. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Snapchat and
many others. These applications represent conversational media. Users of these applications are
abletogoonlineandcommunicatecontentinvariousways,e.g.audioandvideo,whiledeveloping
relationships(Luttrell2015,22-23).Inthisthesis,wewillrefertothetextonFacebookasapost,and
the text on Twitter as a tweet.Whenpostingon Facebook, currently there is a character limit of
60,000 (Protalinski 2011).Andon twitter, the character limit is 140 characters (“PostingaTweet”
n.d.).OnefeatureonTwitterisahashtag(#),whichisusedtomarkkeywordsortopics,andisused
Page 36
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
37
to categorize Tweets, also a hashtag is searchable,whereby users are able to see Tweets tagged
(Using Hashtags on Twitter, n.d.). Another feature is a retweet, where one is able to repost or
forwardamessagepostedbyanotheruseronTwitter(OxfordDictionaries,n.d.).Inaddition,when
tweetingonTwitterorpostingonFacebook,oneisableto includeanimageorvideoalongwitha
linkthatpotentiallycouldbeusedtoengagestakeholders.
TheInternetandapplicationsconstitutemoreorlessaglobalforum–everythingneededto
join theseapplicationsorgoonline isbasicallyan Internetconnection.Almosteveryone isable to
connectwithpeoplefromallovertheworld,barringsomecountry-specificblockadesorentirelack
ofInternetconnectioninmind.ThishasmadetheInternetintoaveryaccessibledomainforall(Siah
et al. 2010, 149). Siah et al. notes that this accessibility is also what can explain how crises can
escalatewhentheyarepublishedorannouncedinonlinemedia;morepeoplecanbecomeawareof
agivencrisisandtheycanevenassistinperpetuatingacrisisbycirculatingtheinformation(Siahet
al.2010,149).
This is why the Internet and social media are integral for communication in general, but
crisiscommunicationinparticular.Anorganizationisabletodirectlyaddressandformconnections
withitsstakeholdersthroughtheInternetanditsdynamicplatforms.Researchhasbeendonethat
examineshowthe Internet isable tohelpcompanies,e.g. inmarketingandcrisis communication,
butSiahetal.foundthatallthesepossibilitiestobeadouble-edgedsword(Siahetal.2010,143).
Putbriefly, thecharacteristicsofnewmedia (which includes socialmedia) suchasuser-generated
content,userinteractivityandintegrationofmultimediacontent,arealsoitsAchillesheel(Siahetal.
2010,143). Inthisway,socialmediacanbebothanadvantageanddisadvantagetocompanies. In
regardstoadvantages,socialmediaplatformscanenablecompaniestoimprovetheirrelationships
with the general public, for example, by providing the latest information and news concerning a
given crisis. Meanwhile, companies are also challenged because they cannot control the
communication, as this kind of communication does not follow traditional top-down systems of
communicating (Romenti and Murtarelli 2014, 12). Everybody can on equal terms and
communication,whichcouldbeaveryflatstructure.Here,thecommunicativeteambehindagiven
company and its stakeholders e.g. followers and likes on Facebook and Twitter are on an equal
footing;inageneralway,asthegivencompanyisincontrolofwhatitpostsonFacebooketc.,but
when thepost ispublished, it canbe shared, likedand commented, and that iswhen it becomes
difficulttocontrol.
Page 37
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
38
3.5 DefinitionofOnlineFirestorm
When a brand or a company is a topic of conversation online, it can undergo an online
firestorm.“Anonline firestorm is the suddendischargeof largequantitiesofmessagescontaining
negative WoM and complaint behavior against a person, company or group in social media
networks”(Pfefferetal.2013,108).Anonlinefirestormcanresemblearumor;thedefinitionofa
rumor is a “proposition for belief, passed along from person to person, usually byWoM,without
securestandardsofevidencebeingpresented”(Pfefferetal.2013,118).Thedifferencebetweena
rumor and an online firestorm originates from the type of word-of-mouth. When the word-of-
mouthcommunicationisonline,itisreferredtoasEWoM,whichisalsoknownaselectronic-word-
of-mouth.Anonlinefirestormincommontermscanalsobereferredtoasa“shitstorm”.
Whenbrandsorcompaniesarepresentedonline,theyareatriskforanonlinefirestormand
their “brand can be jeopardizedwhenan online firestorm is raised” (Pfeffer et al. 2013, 118). An
online firestorm is driven by the speed and flow of messages on social media, along with the
amountofpeoplethemessageorcontentofthesituationareabletoreachinashortperiodoftime
(Pfefferetal.2013,119).Individualsonsocialmediacanconnectwithpeoplewhoareofthesame
age, gender and socioeconomic status (Pfeffer et al. 2013, 122). Also, individuals connect with
otherswhohavethesameperspectivesasthey.Thisresults in individualsconnectingwithpeople
who have “similar interests, topics and opinions” (Pfeffer et al. 2013, 122).When individuals on
social media platforms have the same interests and discuss a given topic, this discussion can
potentiallygrowtobecomeanonlinefirestorm.
Thedynamicsofanonlinefirestormcanbecomplexandunclear.Itisrationaltosaythata
companycanfearthatitsexistenceonsocialmediacouldbeaffectedbynegativecomments,which
may leadtonegative impact for thecompanyandthebrand image(Pfefferetal.2013,118). It is
suggestedthatacompanyshouldbeproactivewhendealingwithanonlinefirestorm(Pfefferetal.
2013,118).Todoso,itshouldcreatenetworksandidentifythe“trustedinformationbrokers”,who
areindividualseducatedandtrustedwithintheirfieldtospreadinformationaboutagivencompany
(Pfefferetal.2013,124).Onceacompanyistargetedwithanonlinefirestorm,somemayperceive
itasanolongertrustedsourceofinformation;thereforethecompanymayhavetorelyonothers
whoaretrustedonsocialmediatoforwardinformation(Pfefferetal.2013,124).Companiesshould
alsodevelopa contingencyplan to“collect social information responsebefore theyareneeded in
ordertocontroltheoverallinformationpicture”(Pfefferetal.2013,124).
Firestormmessagesaremoreopinionbasedratherthanfactbased(Pfefferetal.2013,118)
andtheaggressiononlineishigherthanversusarumor(Pfefferetal.2013,118).Duetothelatter,
“companies facing an upcoming online firestorm have to retain their composure and continue to
Page 38
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
39
communicate and interact” (Pfeffer et al. 2013, 123). Meaning, companies who are under a
firestormonsocialmediashouldparticipate insocialmediarather thantostayaway from it.Not
only should a company participate, but it is “recommended that brands under firestorm increase
their social media usage” (Pfeffer et al. 2013, 124) as it is possible that companies who say ‘no
comment’orignoretheonlinefirestormcompletelywillthenbeperceivednegatively(Pfefferetal.
2013,123).Withthis,companiesshouldalsoincreasetheirdiversityonline.Whencompanieshave
achievedmore diversity online, it can create amigration of the control and information flow for
onlinefirestorms(Pfefferetal.2013,124).
For this thesis, online firestorm is a topic of conversation as each brand, Domino’s and
Chipotle, was a topic online on socialmedia platforms during their individual crisis periods. This
definitionof online firestormwill aidwhendiscussing theusageof the Internet and socialmedia
duringacrisisforcompanies.
3.6 SocialMediaMarketingandeWoM
Socialmediamarketingandword-of-mouthareconsideredinthesamefieldas,“marketing
hasitsrootsinthewordofmouthconversationthathavelinkedbuyerswithsellersoverthepastfew
thousandyears” (Evans2008,xx).Socialmediamarketingoccurswhenacompanyorabrandgain
website attention or traffic through social media platforms and applications. As word of mouth
tacticshavebeenrevolutionizedtodaythroughtheInternet,thetermhasmovedtowardstheform
ofelectronicwordofmouth,alsoknownaseWoM.
EWoM can be defined as “any positive or negative statement made by…[an
individual]…whichismadeavailabletoamultitudeofpeopleandinstitutionsviaInternet”(Hennig-
Thurauetal,200410).TheoveralldifferenceofWoM(Word-of-Mouth)communicationandeWoM
communication can be defined in the difference of WoM being person-person and oral
communication, whereas eWoM is communication done on the Internet when individuals
communicate with friends and family but also strangers (Gupta and Harris 201011). EWoM has
turnedintoapowerfulandquickeffectas“consumerssharemorethan600,000piecesofcontent,
10Hennig-Thurau,T.,Gwinner,K.P.,Walsh,G.andGremler,D.D.(2004),Electronicword-of-mouthviaconsumer-opinionplatforms:whatmotivatesconsumerstoarticulatethemselvesontheinternet?quotedinJoséLuísAbrantesCláudiaSeabraCristianaRaquelLagesChanakaJayawardhena,(2013),"Driversofin-groupandoutof-groupelectronicword-of-mouth(eWOM)",EuropeanJournalofMarketing,Vol.47-7pp.1067-108811Gupta,P.andHarris,J.(2010),Howe-WOMrecommendationsinfluenceproductconsiderationandqualityofchoice:amotivationtoprocessinformationperspective,quotedinJoséLuísAbrantesCláudiaSeabraCristianaRaquelLagesChanakaJayawardhena,(2013),"Driversofin-groupandoutof-groupelectronicword-of-mouth(eWOM)",EuropeanJournalofMarketing,Vol.47-7pp.1067-1088
Page 39
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
40
upload48hofvideo,textgreaterthan100,000messagesandcreateover25,000postwithinsocial
media”(DaughertyandHoffman,2013).
Social media marketing strategies today have to include “a fragmentation in traditional
channelsastheyarenowfacedwiththeoutrighttakeoverofbrandcommunicationsbyconsumers
as they remix, restate, and then republish their version of anything that comes theirway” (Evans
2008, xxi). Companies can interact with individual followers on social media platforms to create
conversations,butcanalsorespondtopeoples’commentsandopinionsonapersonallevel.
Social media marketing has created a limitless process of generating content that draws
attentionbyusersandthenencouragesreaderstoshareitacrosstheirsocialnetworksregardlessof
thebordersthatstandbetweenthem.Whenreadersshareitacrosstheirsocialmedianetworks,the
information and opinions they share can be found credible as “consumers find the information
exchanged on internet social networksmore relevant and trustworthy, as the information reflects
productconsumptioninreal-worldsettingsbyotherconsumersandfreefrommarketers’ interests”
(Abrantes et al. 2013, 1073). Therefore, companies can market information on social media
platformsintheexpectationthatconsumersandreaderswillsharetheinformationalongsidetheir
personalopinions,andsoforthwhileengagingineWoM(Abrantesetal.2013,1073).
While social media marketing is a major aspect of eWoM, the Internet can also draw
negativeattention.Inthisthesis,wewillfocusontheeffectsofeWoM,notasamarketingtoolpre
crisis,butastheeffectsofeWoMpost-crisisthroughconsumeropinionsandcompanies’usageasa
crisiscommunicationtool.
3.7 TheConceptofCrisisCommunication
Inthissection,wewillfirstpresentadefinitionoftheterm‘crisis’.Next,wewillexplaincrisis
communicationasatopicandlastly,wewillpresentthethreedifferenttheorieswearguearelinked
tocrisiscommunicationandareapplicableinorderforustoanswertheproblemstatement.These
theories are Massey’s Organizational Image Management Theory, Coombs’ Situational Crisis
CommunicationTheory,andBenoit’sImageRepairTheory.
3.7.1 CrisisDefinition
Tobetterunderstandtheneedforcrisiscommunication, it is importanttounderstandthe
baseandperceptionofacrisis.Theterm“crisis”canbeseenasoneofthemoststrainedwordsin
different societies around the globe (Fronz 2012, 1) but overall, “a crisis is unpredictable but not
unexpected”(Coombs,2015,3).Themostagreeddefinitionofcrisisiswhereapossiblethreattothe
Page 40
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
41
company is at hand. Coombs (2007) describes a crisis as “sudden and unexpected event that
threatenstodisruptanorganization’soperationsandposesbothafinancialandreputationalthreat”
(164).Thiscanbereadasabroaddefinitionas it ignorestheaspectofacrisisbeinganythingbut
suddenandoverlookingtheimpactacrisishasonstakeholdersofthecompanyathand.
As public relations discusses the importance of relationships with and between
stakeholders, Fearn-Banks (2007) describes a crisis as “a major occurrence with a potentially
negative outcome affecting an organization as well as its publics, services, products and/or good
name. It interrupts normal business transactions and can, atworst, threaten the existence of the
organization” (2). For this thesis, the Fearn-Banks definitionwill be used aswe acknowledge the
healthviolationsofbothChipotleandDomino’smajorimpactsonnotonlythecompanies,butalso
ontheirindividualstakeholders.
Therearetwodifferenttypesofnotions12ofacrisis;organizationalcrisisoradisaster(Coombs,
2015,2).Disastersareeventsthataresuddenandmayhaveaneffectonanorganization'svalues
and social goals versus an organizational crisis where the events are unpredictable and threaten
“expectancies of stakeholders related to health, safety, environmental, and economic issues”
(Coombs2015,3)Adisasterentailsfindingadifferentcourseofactiontomanagetheinterference
whenitposesdangertothecompany’svaluesandsocialgoals(Coombs2015,3).Inthisthesis,the
focusentirelyonorganizationalcrisisofboth,ChipotleandDomino’s.
3.7.2 CrisisCommunication
Crisiscommunicationhasbecomeimperativeascrisesareuniversalintoday’senvironment
and “is [a] highly important, critical andhighlyperceiveddiscipline for companies to react, inform
and interactwiththeirstakeholdergroupsconcerningcrisissituations” (Fronz2012,2).Becauseof
this, communication theories try to develop meaning within the messages and construction of
realityinthecommunicationandcoordinationthatsurroundsthethreateninganduncertainevents
thatgohandinhandwithcrises.Foracompany,crisiscommunicationcanbehighlyimportantasit
hasthepotentialtoofferatypeofprotectionagainstdamagetoitsreputationwhileminimizingthe
potentialdamageofacrisis(Coombs,2007).Overallcrisiscommunicationrequiresspecialattention
as “a firm’s reputation is based upon public’s opinion which is more sensitive and needs special
measure”(Fronz2012,1).
SellnowandSeegerarguethatunderstandingtheactivitiesbefore,duringandafteracrisis
to be vital as “a significant component of that understanding involves clarifying the role of
12Anotionisdescribedasabeliefaboutsomething(CambridgeDictionary2016).
Page 41
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
42
communication processes in the onset, management, resolution andmeaning of crises.” (Sellnow
andSeeger2013,1).However,thisthesiswillfocusonthecrisiscommunicationduringthecrisis.
There are different perspectiveswithin crisis communication, and Johansen and Frandsen
(2007) have two different approaches regarding crisis communication, a narrow approach and a
broadapproach.Anarrowapproachlooksatcrisiscommunicationduringacrisisorcommunication
whenacrisishasalreadyappeared.Itfocusesonacrisisasanisolatedeventwithinacertaintime
frame(JohansenandFrandsen2007,15).Anotherimportantaspectofthenarrowapproachofcrisis
communication is that it sees the communication as sender-oriented aswell as information. This
meansthatacompanywillchooseamorestrategicapproachwherethegivencompanyisfocused
onbeingefficientandaction-oriented(JohansenandFrandsen2007,16).“How-to”guidesarealso
preferablewithinthisapproach.
The broad approach perceives a crisis as a process and therefore looks at the
communication before, during and after a crisis. Here, two important things are proactive
prevention/preparationandalsotolookatwhatyoucanbelearnedfromacrisisafterithasabated.
(Johansen and Frandsen 2007, 16). Another important aspect with the broad approach is that it
perceives thecommunicationasboth senderand receiver-orientedwhereas thenarrowapproach
only sees it as sender communication (Johansen and Frandsen 2007, 17). The broad approach
includestheimportanceoftheotherparties,suchasthemedia’scoverageofagivencrisis.
According the Johansen and Frandsen (2007, 17), there has been a development within
these twoapproaches,within the last twenty years, themajor focushas shifted from thenarrow
approachtothebroadapproach.Thebroadapproachoffersdifferentapproachtowardshowtodeal
with the communication related to a crisis. It believes that there is not a “how-to” guide and
eventually,everycrisisisunique(JohansenandFrandsen2007,17).
Inthisthesis,thebroadapproachtocrisiscommunicationisutilizedallowingfocusonboth
the senders’ (Chipotle and Domino’s) communication and the receivers’ (individuals/stakeholders
andmedia)communicationaswebelieveitisimportanttoincludebothaspectsandviewsofagiven
case and crisis and also to look at the societal contexts and conditions. Crisis communication has
beenresearchedinmanywaysbutparticularlybythetwoscholarsTimothyW.CoombsandWilliam
L.Benoit.Theirwork ispredominant in the fieldof crisis communication,and for this thesis, their
theorieswillbethetheoreticalbaseoftheanalysisofChipotleandDomino’scrisiscommunication
alongwiththetheoryofOrganizationalImageManagementbyJosephEricMassey.
Page 42
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
43
3.7.3 OrganizationalImageManagementTheory
TheorganizationalimagemanagementtheorybyJosephEricMasseyisaboutorganizations
trying to maximize potential success, it is necessary to maintain an effectual image with its
stakeholders.Thistheoryisaprocessmodelwhereanorganizationattempttocreate,maintainand
ifneeded,regainitsimageofitselffromthestakeholder’sperspective(MillarandHeath2004,234).
Three steps which are all of a dialectic process where the organizations and stakeholders
communicatewithoneanothertocreatetheimageoftheorganizationtogether(MillarandHeath
2004,234)
Thefirststageoftheprocessstartsatthebeginningofanorganizationwhenitiscreated.An
organization is required tocreatean imageof itself for thevarious stakeholders.The secondstep
occursafteranorganizationhas successfully created its image. It thenhas tocontinue towork to
maintaintheimage.Thisstepisintendedasacontinuousstep;ifanorganizationfailstosustainand
monitor its image from the feedback that it receives from stakeholders, the success of its
organizational imagemanagement is then threatened (MillarandHeath2004,234).The thirdand
finalstepofthismodelistheprocessofrestoration.Afteranorganizationhasexperiencedanysort
ofcrisis,itmovestothethirdstage.Notallorganizationswillmovetothethirdstage,butbecauseof
the degree of the escalation and extent of crisis,many organizationswillmove to the final stage
(Millar and Heath 2004, 235). During the final stage, organizations “must engage in strategic
communicationtorestoreasuccessfulimage”(MillarandHeath2004,235).Thisfinalstagecanbe
arguedasusageofbothCoombs’SCCTandBenoit’sImageRepairTheory.
(MillarandHeath2004,235)
ImageMaintenance
ImageRestoration
Successful
Unsuccessful
OrganizationFailureOrganizationalRestructuring
Page 43
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
44
Ifanorganizationisabletosuccessfullyregainitsimageafteracrisis,itreturnstothesecondstage
of the process to continue maintaining its image. If an organization is unsuccessful regaining its
image,theorganizationcouldpotentiallygounderoritcouldneedtorestructureas“organizations
thatdonotengageinsuccessfulimagemanagementincreasethechancesforfailure”(Sellnowetal.
199813)Restructuringcould includedevelopinganew identity for theorganization,andatworsta
mergerwithanothercompany(MillarandHeath2004,235).
This theory is important in this thesis as it defines the importance of perceptions of
stakeholders’ responses towards thecompany ina timeofcrisis.Collectiveperceptionsofagiven
companymake itpossible for the interdependent relationships toexistbetweenstakeholdersand
companies(TreadwellandHarrison,199414).
3.7.4 SituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory
DevelopedbyTimothyW.Coombs,theSituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory(SCCT)isused
toexplaintheconnectionbetweendifferentcrisis typesandcrisis responseofferingaguidelineof
how to analyze and manage a crisis in order to protect an organization’s reputation, centered
around stakeholders’ reactions to different crises and crisis communication (Coombs 2007, 163).
Coombs (2007) believes that there are three components of a crisis that could threaten an
organization:perceivedcrisisresponsibility,crisishistoryandapre-crisissituationofanorganization
in crisis. These three elements directly influence the extent to which the crisis impacts an
organizational reputation, where a positive reputation can function as a “buffer” for damage on
organizationalreputation(Coombs2007,165).
SCCTisbuiltontheAttributionTheory,suggestingthatindividualswillseekblameforthecause
of an event by attributing their beliefs about an event, particularly in negative and unexpected
events (Weiner1985,548).Whenanorganizationhasapriorcrisishistory record,whetherornot
theorganizationhashadpreviouscrisesthismayinfluencetheperceptionofresponsibilityandthe
general reputation of the organization where stakeholders will then attribute greater crisis
responsibility(Coombs2007,267).
Inaddition,SCCTusesAttributionTheorytoforeseethereputationalthreatofacrisisandtobe
able to form proper crisis response strategies to diminish or avoid completely any reputational
damage(Coombs,2007,166).Inanycrisissituation,theperceivedcrisisresponsibilityisessentialas 13Seeger,M.W.,Sellnow,T.L.,&Ulmer,R.R.(1998).Communication,organization,andcrisis.InM.E.RoloffandG.D.Paulson,(Eds.),CommunicationYearbook21,pp.231-275.quotedinJosephE.Massey.(2003).ATheoryofOrganizationalImageManagement:Antecedents,Processes&Outcomes.AccessedMay9,201614D.FTreadwellandT.MHarris(1994).Conceptulalizingandassessingorganizationalimage:Modelimages,commitment,andcommunication.CommunicationMonographs,61,63-85quotedinBlakeE.AshforthandFredA.Mael(1996).OrganizationalIdentityandtheStrategyasaContextfortheIndividual.AccessedMay9,2016
Page 44
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
45
theresponsestrategyisdependentonwhetherornottheorganizationtakesresponsibilityforthe
crisisornot,butalso,whetherornottheorganization'sstakeholdersbelievetheorganizationtobe
responsibleforthecrisisornot(Coombs1995,449).
Coombs (2007, 168) categorizes crises into three crisis clusters: victim, accidental and
preventable.ThetablebelowisdirectlyquotedfromCoombs(2007,168)anditpresentsthethree
differentcrisisclusters:
VictimCluster Naturaldisaster:Actsofnaturedamageanorganizationsuchasanearthquake.Rumor: False and damaging information about an organization is beingcirculated.Workplace violence: Current or former employee attacks current employeesonsite.Product tampering/Malevolence: External agents causes damage to anorganization.
AccidentalCluster Challenges:Stakeholdersclaimanorganization isoperating inan inappropriatemanner.Technical-error accidents: A technology or equipment failure causes anindustrialaccident.Technical-error product harm: A technology or equipment failure causes aproducttoberecalled.
Intentional/Preventable
Cluster
Human-erroraccidents:Humanerrorcausesanindustrialaccident.Human-errorproductharm:Humanerrorcausesaproducttoberecalled.Organizational misdeed with no injuries: Stakeholders are deceived withoutinjury.Organizational misdeed management misconduct: Laws or regulations areviolatedbymanagement.Organizational misdeed with injuries: Stakeholders are placed at risk bymanagementandinjuriesoccur.
(Source:Coombs2007,p.168)
Asaresultofresearch,Coombshasdevelopedseveralcrisiscommunicationstrategiesthat
attempt to “repair the reputation, to reduce negative affect and to prevent negative behavioral
intentions”(Coombs2007,170).Coombsputsstressontheimportanceofethicalaspectsofacrisis
where the first priority is, and always will be, to protect stakeholders from harm, rather than
protectingthereputation(Coombs2007,170).Thetableonthenextpagecontainsdirectquotations
ofCoombs'model(2015,140):
Page 45
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
46
DenialPosture
Attackingtheaccuser
Denial
Scapegoating
Thecrisismanagerconfrontsthepersonorgroupthatclaimsthatacrisisexists.Theresponsemayincludeathreattouseforce(e.g.,alawsuit)againsttheaccuser
The crisismanager states that no crisis exists. The responsemay include explaining
whythereisnocrisis.
Someotherpersonorgroupoutsideoftheorganizationisblamedforthecrisis.
DiminishmentPosture
Excusing
Justification
Thecrisismanagertriestominimizetheorganization'sresponsibilityforthecrisis.The
responsecan includedenyingany intentiontodoharmorclaimingthattheorganizationhad
nocontroloftheeventswhichleadtothecrisis.
Thecrisismanagertriestominimizetheperceiveddamageassociatedwiththecrisis.
The response can include stating that therewereno seriousdamagesor injuries or claiming
thatthevictimsdeservedwhattheyreceived.
RebuildingPosture
Compensation
Apology
Theorganizationprovidesmoneyorothergiftstothevictims.
Thecrisismanagerpubliclystatesthattheorganizationtakesfullresponsibilityforthe
crisisandasksforforgiveness.
BolsteringPosture
Reminding
Ingratiation
Victimage
Theorganizationtellsstakeholdersaboutitspastgoodworks.
Theorganizationpraisesstakeholders.
Theorganizationexplainshowittooisavictimofthecrisis.
(Source:Coombs2015,140)
Thefirstcrisisresponsestrategyinvolvesdenyingthecrisisbyattackingtheaccuser,denial
orcrisisusingascapegoatapproach.Thesecondstrategyiscalleddiminishmentpostureformingan
excuse or justification of the crisis. The third is rebuilding posture with either compensation to
Page 46
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
47
victimsoranapologyasasub-category.Thelastcrisisresponsestrategyiscalledbolsteringposture
and suggests reinforcing stakeholdersby reminding stakeholdersofprecedinggoodworkdoneby
the organization, ingratiation where the organization praises stakeholders or victimage (Coombs
2007,170).
Overall,SCCTfocusesonanalyzingthecrisissituationandtoexaminehowtoapproachthe
crisiswitha communicativeoutlookdependingon theperceived crisis responsibility, crisishistory
and pre-crisis reputation. This theory focuses on looking at when, where and whom the crisis is
affecting. Nevertheless, SCCT is criticized for the lack of information regarding stakeholders as
sendersofinformation,i.e.themedia’sroleinformingthecrisis(CoombsandHolladay2010,428).
Inaddition,asastrongfocusofthetheoryisonthereactivepartofcrisiscommunication(afterthe
crisishasbegun),SCCT iscriticized for thedeficiencyof in-depth investigationofprocessesbefore
andafterthecrisisalongwiththelackoftextualorsemioticanalysisortoolstocrisiscommunication
(CoombsandHolladay2010,428).Asthemorespecificcommunicativetoolsareleftforthereader
to decide, the criticism SCCT has receivedmakes sense as itwould be easier if some textual and
semiotic analysis were made by Coombs in addition to the guidelines previously provided.
Regardless of these shortcomings, Coombs’ structure for crisis communication offers an involved
assessmentofcrisesandtheappropriateresponsestrategiesandguidelinesneededwhichforthis
thesisisusefulwhenanalyzingChipotleandDomino'sapproachtocrisiscommunication.
3.7.5 ImageRepairTheory
BasedonWilliamL.Benoit’spreviousresearch, inspirationfromtwotheoreticaltraditions;
rhetoricandsociology(JohansenandFrandsen2007,204),hedevelopedthe ImageRepairTheory
(alsoknownasImageRestorationStrategies)(Benoit1995,95).Thisisthetheoryusedinthisthesis.
Benoit has also put the theory into practice in “real life”. He has applied this theory to different
companycases,e.g.thebattlebetweenCoca-ColaandPepsi inthe90sandTexaco’scrisis in1999
(Johansen and Frandsen 2007, 203). Benoit’s theory of Image Repair is within the area of the
rhetoricaltradition–heseekstoexaminehowagivencompanyreactsandrespondsduringacrisis.
Benoit argues that face, image and reputation are important for humans, but also for
companies.Healsostatesthat inordertokeepthisface, imageorreputation,manyarewillingto
“takebothpreventiveandrestorativeapproachestocopewith imageproblems”(MillarandHeath
2004,263).AccordingtoBenoit,“anattackonan image,face,orreputationhastwocomponents:
(a) An act occurred that is considered offensive, and (b) The accused is held responsible for that
action”(MillarandHeath2004,264).
Page 47
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
48
Ifbothofthesecomponentsarebelievedtobetruebytheappropriateaudience(s),alsocalled
salientaudience (MillarandHeath2004,264),one’s face, imageor reputationareat stake,anda
crisismayoccur.Thisalsomeansthatifagivencompanydoesnotfindaparticulargroupofpeople’s
beliefs important, it is no threat to the company’s face, image or reputation.We argue that this
might not be true today as the Internet can be a fast source to spreadone’s opinions and it can
quicklybesharedbypeoplesoitcanaffectthepeopleagivencompanymightconsiderasitstarget
audience,thiscouldpotentiallyleadtoanonlinefirestorm.
Benoit states “perceptions are more important than reality” (Millar and Heath 2004, 264),
whichmeansthatitisnotimportantiftheactreallyhappened,butratheriftheaudience(s)believed
it happened.Another important aspect, according to Benoit, is the size of the case and also how
many people it involves – the biggermagnitude, negativity and themore people affected by the
case, the more damage it can cause. “The greater the (perceived) offensiveness of the act, and,
perhaps,thegreaterthe(apparent)responsibilityoftheaccusedforthatact,thegreaterthedamage
totheimage”(MillarandHeath2004,265).
Strategy KeyCharacteristics
Denial
-SimpleDenial
-Shifttheblame
Didnotperformact
Anotherperformedact
Evasionofresponsibility
-Provocation
-Defeasibility
-Accident
-GoodIntentions
Respondedtoactofanother
Lackofinformationorability
Mishap
Meantwell
Reducingoffensivenessofevent
-Bolstering
-Minimization
-Differentiation
-Transcendence
-Attackaccuser
-Compensation
Stressgoodtraits
Actnotserious
Actlessoffensivethansimilaracts
Moreimportantvalues
Reducecredibilityofaccuser
Reimbursevictim
CorrectiveAction Plantosolve/preventreoccurrenceofproblem
Mortification Apologize
Page 48
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
49
Whenrepairingadamagedimageorreputationdifferentstrategiescanbeused.Accordingto
Benoit, there are five general strategies within these five, three of them have sub-strategies
(JohansenandFrandsen2007,207andBenoit1995,75-82):
They five image repair strategies are: denial, evasion of responsibility, reduction of
offensiveness,correctiveactionandmortification.
Thefirststrategyisdenial,heretherearetwopossiblesub-strategies;simpledenialandshift
theblame.Simpledenialmeans that theaccusedsimplydenies thathe/she/ithadanything todo
with the undesirable action, and “denial may be supplemented with explanations of apparently
damagingfactsorlackofsupportingevidence”(Benoit2014,22).Thiscould,however,makepeople
wonderwhoactually isresponsible,andthis iswhereshifttheblameappears.Here,apersonora
company blame another for the given wrongdoing or undesirable action. Benoit argues that this
strategymightbemoreeffectiveasitmayremoveanybadfeelingstargetedtheaccusedpersonor
company,andthefeelingwillbeshiftedfromtheaccusedtoanewplace(Benoit2014,22-23).
Thesecondstrategyisevasionofresponsibility.Thisstrategyconcerns,“thosewhoareunable
to deny performing the act in question and may be able to evade or reduce their apparent
responsibility for it” (Benoit 2014, 23). This strategy has four sub-strategies; provocation,
defeasibility,accidentandgoodintentions.Thefirstsub-strategysuggeststhattheaccusedperson
orcompanycanclaimthathe/she/itonlyactedinaspecificwayduetoanotherwrongfulactmade
byanotherpart(Benoit2014,23).Ifpeopleagreewiththis,thentheblamemightbeshiftedtothe
otherpart(Benoit2014,23).Defeasibility,thesecondsub-strategy,iswhenapersonoracompany
uses“lackofinformationaboutorcontroloverimportantfactorsinthesituation”(Benoit2014,23)
as an approach. Here, the accused tries to use the lack of information about a given event or
situationasawayofsayingthathe/she/itcannotbeheldfullyresponsiblefortheact(Benoit2014,
23). The third sub-strategy is called accidents. Here, “the accused canmake an excuse based on
accidents”(Scott&Lyman,196815).Thismeansthattheaccusedpersonorcompanydonotdenythe
undesirable act, instead he/she/it tries to find information “thatmay reduce his or her apparent
responsibilityfortheoffensiveact”(Benoit2014,23).Thefourthandlastsub-strategywithinevasion
of responsibility isgood intentions.Here,agivenpersonor companydoesnotdeny theoffensive
act,but“theaudienceisaskednottoholdtheactorfullyresponsible,becauseitwasdonewithgood,
ratherthanevil,intentions”(Benoit2014,23-24).Thiscouldbeconsideredasmartmoveas“people
whodobadwhiletryingtodogoodareusuallynotblamedasmuchasthosewhointendtodobad”
(Benoit2014,24).
15 Scott&Lyman,1968quotedinBenoit,WilliamL,.2014.Accounts,Excuses,andApologies,SecondEdition:ImageRepairTheoryandResearch.NewYork:SunyPress.
Page 49
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
50
The third strategy is called reducing offensiveness. This strategy is about the attempt “to
reduce the degree of ill feeling experienced by the audience” (Benoit 2014, 24), and it has six
differentsub-strategies;bolstering,minimization,differentiation,transcendence,attackaccuserand
compensation.
The first sub-strategy isbolstering.Here,“thoseaccusedofwrongdoingmight relatepositive
attributestheypossessorpositiveactionstheyhaveperformedinthepast”(Benoit2014,24).Benoit
arguesthatthenegativeaffectmightremainthesame,buttheeffectofincreasingpositivefeelings
“mayhelpoffsetthenegativefeelingstowardtheact,yieldingarelativeimprovementintheactor’s
reputation”(Benoit2014,24).
Minimizationisthesecondsub-strategy.Here,agivencompanyorpersonwilltrytoconvince
peoplethattheactisnot“asbadasitmightfirstappear”(Benoit2014,24),whichmayreducethe
amountofbadfeelingsassociatedwiththeactandthegivenpersonorcompany,andBenoitargues
that if thisapproach isusedsuccessfully,aperson’soracompany’s reputation is repaired (Benoit
2014,24).
Thethirdsub-strategy isdifferentiation.Withthisapproach,agivencompanyorpersontries
“to distinguish the act performed fromother similar but less desirable actions” (Benoit 2014, 24).
Thiscouldhavetheeffectoftheactappearinglessoffensive,andtherebydecreasetheamountof
negativefeelingtowardsthesituationoractandtheaccused(Benoit2014,24).
Transcendence is the fourth sub-strategy. Here, the accused person or company can try to
place the act in a different, positive context - “this positive context may lessen the perceived
offensivenessoftheactandhelpimprovetheactor’sreputation”(Benoit2014,25).
Thefifthsub-strategyiscalledattackaccuser.Withthisapproach,agivencompanyoraperson
cantry toattack thecredibilityof thesourceofaccusations,whichcanreducethedamageto the
company’s or person’s image. Furthermore, “it is also possible that attacking one’s accuser may
divert theaudience’sattentionaway fromtheoriginalaccusation, reducingdamage to theactor’s
image”(Benoit2014,25).
Thefinalsub-strategy iscompensation.Withthisapproach,apersonoracompany“offersto
remunerate the victim to help offset the negative feeling arising from the wrongful act” (Benoit
2014, 25). Benoit (2014) argues that this could be seen as a bribe in formof e.g. valued goodor
monetary reimbursement, which can help, if accepted, repair a given person’s or company’s
reputation.
Thefourthstrategyiscalledcorrectiveaction.Here,theaccusedcompanyorpersonwantsto
solvetheproblem.“Thisapproachcantaketheformofrestoringthesituationtothestateofaffairs
beforetheobjectionableactand/orapromiseto“mendone’sways”andmakechangestoprevent
Page 50
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
51
the recurrenceof theundesirableact” (Benoit2014,26).With thisapproachandstrategy,agiven
companyorpersonseekstofindtheactualsourceofinjuryandwantstocorrectthepastactand/or
trytopreventrecurrenceofthis(Benoit2014,26).
Thelaststrategyiscalledmortification.Here,theaccusedpersonorcompany“mayadmitthe
wrongful act and ask for forgiveness, engaging in mortification” (Benoit 2014, 26), and if the
audiencebelieveandthinktheapologyissincere,theymightchoosetoforgivetheact(Benoit2014,
26).Itcanberiskytoadmitandcommittotheblame,asthistiestheaccusedtothewrongfulact.
Furthermore,“itmaybewisetocouplethisstrategywithplanstocorrect(orpreventrecurrenceof)
theproblem”(Benoit2014,26).
AccordingtoBenoit,itprobablygivesthebesteffecttousemultiplestrategies,unlessasingle
strategy”isverylikelytobeparticularlyeffectivewiththeintendedaudience(…)“(Benoit1995,157),
but at the same time “(…) use ofmultiple strategiesmay be beneficial in that they reinforce one
another”(Benoit1995,157).Furthermore,Benoitstatesthat,“theseimagerepairstrategiesattempt
toaltertheaudience’sexistingbeliefsortocreatenewbeliefsintheaudience”(Benoit2014,29).
When using Benoit’s theory in relation to a company, it is important to remember that
companies often address several audiences, such as local people, stockholders, stakeholders and
politicians–andeachofthesegroupsmighthavedifferentconcerns,viewsandinterests,and it is
therefore important to have the most important audience(s) in mind during the crisis
communication(Benoit1997,178).
Benoit states thathemaybe“(…)avoiding theextremedetail found in somedescriptionsof
accounts (…)” (Benoit 1995, 74), which maybe can be seen as a defect/lack in his image repair
theory.Itcanbearguedthatthislackisverycommoninthesetypesoftheoriesasitisdealingwith
humanbehavior–theextremedetailsmayhavetobeavoided/ignoredtomakethetheoryclearand
manageable.
Furthermore, it could be a concern that the theory first was developed with individuals in
mind, not companies, but Benoit himself argues, “(…) the basic options are the same for both
individualandcorporateimagerepairefforts”(Benoit1997,177).
Despitethecriticism,itcanbearguedthatBenoit’sImageRepairTheoryisfunctionalandvalid
duetothefactthatBenoitisawareofthisproblematicofthecomplexityofhumanbehaviorandthe
wideacceptanceofhistheoryintheacademicworld.
Weargue thatCoombs’ SCCTandBenoit’s ImageRepairTheory supplementeachothervery
well,butthetwotheoriescanalsobeseenasverysimilar.Coombsarguesthatresponsibilityisthe
link between crisis response and reputational threat of a crisis in SCCT, stating that the "(...)
evaluation of the reputational threat (the situation) is largely a function of crisis responsibility"
Page 51
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
52
(Coombs2007,170).Coombs’ listof crisis response strategies can seemvery familiarafterhaving
beenpresentedwiththeaccountforBenoit'sImageRepairTheorystrategies(mentionedabove,p.
51).ThisisbecauseCoombs'listis,"(...)builtaroundtheperceivedacceptanceofresponsibilityfora
crisis embodied in the response" (Coombs 2007, 170) while drawing upon the crisis response
strategiesarticulatedin,amongstothers,Benoit'sImageRepairTheory.
Benoit’soverallfocusisonthechoiceofdifferentstrategiesduringacrisisperiod,whereas
Coombs’SCCTcanbeusedasananalyticaltooltodefinethetypeofcrisisandapproachtoagiven
company’s response strategy.Due to the latter, each theory complements eachother as Coombs
focusesonthecrisisclusterandstrategiesandBenoitfocusesspecificallyonthestrategiestorepair
acompany’simage.
4. ContextualSetting
Inthissectionofthethesis,wewillfirstaccountforbothChipotle’sandDomino’sprofilesto
providebackgroundknowledgeabout the two companies and their brands. Lastly,wewill explain
Chipotle’sandDomino’scrisesindetail.
4.1 Chipotle’sProfile
TheChipotle16MexicanGrillfoodchainwasfoundedin1993bySteveEllsinColorado,United
States.Inthisthesis,ChipotleMexicanGrillwillbereferredtoas“Chipotle”.ThisMexicangrillserves
an assortment of gourmet burritos, tacos, burrito bowls and salads made from high quality
ingredients.FromthebeginningEllswascommittedtoestablishingabrandandahighqualityfood
chainthatmadefoodpreparationrelatedtowhereingredientscomefrom,howtheyweregrown,
andhowfoodispreparedinthekitchentobeofhighpriority.OnChipotle’swebsite,itdescriptively
discuss“FoodwithIntegrity”tobeitsmajorvalueanditsmottoas“Everychoicethey[we]make—
aboutwho they [we]workwith,what they [we] serve andwhat they [we] stand for—affects the
biggerpicture:thehealthoftheplanet”(ChipotleFoodwithIntegrity,n.d.).Althoughthereisahigh
cost of serving organic produce and the challenge of seasonal unavailability, Chipotle focuses on
servingitemsfreefromGMO’stobeasgreenaspossible(ChipotleFoodwithIntegrity,n.d.).
In focusing on being as green as possible, the customer needs and experience are of high
priorityatChipotle.AsChipotleoffers“FoodwithIntegrity”bystayingawayfromfastfoodindustry
stapletechniques,itspricestandsatpremiumlevelasconsumersarereceivingahighlevelproduct
composedofhighqualityfoods.Asforcustomerexperience,wheneatingatChipotle,amajorpart
16DefinitionofChipotle:asmokedandusuallydriedjalapeñopepper.(Merrium-WebsterDictionary2016)
Page 52
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
53
ofitsservicemodelisbuiltupontherelationshipbetweencustomersandemployees(Melnick,n.d).
WhenoneentersaChipotlelocationasacustomer,thecustomerisincontroloftheentireprocess
ofbuildinge.g.aburritofromthebeginning(selectingingredients)toend(beingpackaged)without
it leavingone’ssight.Ontopofcustomeremployeerelationship,Chipotlefocusesontransparency
as a main part of its brand image, which QSR magazine in 2011 named to be a quick service
restaurant trend where open kitchens give a transparency feel to customers providing that the
businesshasnothingtohide(Tuttle,2012).
Today, Chipotle has more than 1,500 locations internationally including the United States,
United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and France (Chipotle 2016). Its headquarters is located in
Denver,Colorado.Chipotlehasgaineda largefollowingonsocialmedia. Ithasacquired2,802,633
likesonFacebook,743,000followersontwitterand292,000followersonInstagram(Numbersfrom
March,2016;ChipotleFacebook2016,ChipotleTwitter2016,andChipotleInstagram2016).
4.2 Domino’sProfile
Domino’sPizzaisafastfoodchain,morespecificallyapizzadeliverychainfoundedbyTomand
JamesMonaghan in1960 in theUnitedStates. In this thesis,Domino’sPizzawillbereferredtoas
“Domino’s”.Domino’sopeneditsfirststorein1967andsincethe60’s,thecompanyhasgrownvery
quickly (Domino’s,n.d.).By1978,Domino’sopened its200thstoreand later in1983,thecompany
opened its first international store in Canada (Domino’s, n.d.). Today, Domino’s has over 12,100
stores with more than 5,000 outside the United States (Domino’s, n.d.). As mentioned above,
Domino’sisawell-establishedcompanythatsincethe60’shasbeenknownasapizzadeliverychain.
Ithasdevelopedquickly,andisnowthesecondlargestpizzachainintheworld(Jones,2015).When
looking at Domino’s company, it is divided into two parts; company owned restaurants and
franchised restaurants. Today, 97percentofDomino’s is franchisedowned (Domino’s 101, n.d.) -
this makes it a bit more difficult to navigate around the company’s website and social media
platformsaseverycountryhasitsownwebsiteandmanyofthestoreshavetheirowne.g.Facebook
account.Thepizzachain’smissionistosellmorepizzaandhavemorefun(Domino’svision,mission
andvalues,n.d.).
Aspreviouslymentioned,Domino’s isvisibleonseveralsocialmediaplatforms.OnFacebook,
Domino’s has an official page (there are several of other Domino’s Facebook pages concerning
specific locations,butwewillonlyfocusontheofficialpage)with10,504,503 likes(numbersfrom
March 11, 2016; Domino’s Facebook, n.d.). Domino’s can also be found on Twitter where it has
Page 53
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
54
1,007,766followers(numbersfromMarch11,2016;Domino’sTwitter,n.d.),andonInstagramwith
566,000followers(numbersfromMarch11,2016,Domino’sInstagram,n.d.).
4.3 ContextofChipotleCrisis
BetweenAugustandDecemberof2015,thefastfoodchain,Chipotle,hadseveralfoodsafety
incidentsnationwide in theUnitedStates that reportedly infectedover500customers in the five-
monthspan(LearnWhatHappened,2016).
In August 2015, a Chipotle location located in Simi Valley, California was infected with
Noroviruswhere 243 reported customerswere sickenedby thedisease and later inDecember of
2015 another location in Boston, Massachusetts was infected with Norovirus with 143 reported
customers sickened.Chipotlehas stated that theviruswasmost likely fromanemployee that fell
sickandremainedatworkwhiledisregardingitsillnesspolicies(LearnWhatHappened2016).
In addition to the two Norovirus outbreaks, 64 customers were infectedwith Salmonella in
MinnesotaandWisconsininAugustof2015.Thesalmonellawaslinkedbacktoabatchoftomatoes
thatwereseveredin22differentlocationswithinthosetwostates(LearnWhatHappened,2016).
Lastly, fromOctobertoNovemberof2015,60reportedcustomerswere infectedwithE.Coli
pathogens inelevendifferentstates(California,Delaware, Illinois,Kentucky,Maryland,Minnesota,
NewYork,Ohio,Oklahoma,OregonandWashington) (LearnWhatHappened,2016).Chipotlewas
unsurewhere the E. Coli originated from as it stated that there can be a delay of time between
individuals being infected and showing symptoms; therefore, the E. Coli was suggested to have
already traveled from its locations by the time the CDC (Center for Disease Control) did testing
resultingintheunknownoriginofthepathogen(LearnWhatHappened,2016).
OntopofthefoodincidentsinvolvingChipotle,thecrisiscontinuedonsocialmediaplatforms
asstakeholderskeptsharinginformingontheseplatforms.Also,Chipotle’sstockhasfallenwellover
35percent.Atthetailendofthecrisis,Chipotlereplacedfoodandimplementedlabanalyses,hiring
epidemiologyandfoodsafetyexperts(LearnWhatHappened,2016).Afterthefoodsafetyexperts
implementednewsafetyprograms,ChipotleclosedalllocationsonFebruary8,2016toshowafood
safetyinstructionalvideotoitsemployees.
4.4 ContextofDomino’sCrisis
InApril2009,twoemployees,KristyHammondsandMichaelSetzerfromDomino’sfranchisein
NorthCarolinauploadedavideoonYouTube.Thevideoshowedsomeimagesofthetwoemployees
Page 54
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
55
clearlyviolatinghealth-codestandardswhenoneoftheemployeese.g.putcheeseinhisnoseand
thenblewthecheeseoutonasandwich(Clifford2009).
The videowaspublishedon YouTubeby KristyHammondson SundayApril 12, 2009 andby
April15thevideowasviewedoveronemilliontimes–thiswasalsothedaytheoriginalvideoby
HammondswasremovedfromYouTube(TheNewYorkTimes,2009).
When the video first was published, it was without the knowledge of Domino’s, and the
companywas not aware of this before a blogger17called attention to this issueMonday evening.
Thiswasalmost24hoursafterthevideowaspublished(TheNewYorkTimes,2009),andfromthen
onitquicklyescalated.Tuesdaymorning,thetwoemployees,HammondsandSetzer,werefiredand
byWednesday, Domino’s had created an account on Twitter and responded to the publicwith a
responsivevideofeaturingtheCEOpostedonYouTube(TheNewYorkTimes,2009).
Today,theoriginalvideobyHammondscannotbefoundonYouTube,butseveralofvideosstill
appearonmediawhensearchinge.g.“Domino’spizzacrisis”or“Domino'spizzaemployeeprank”.
Fromthis,severalvideosappear,onecalled“DirtyDirtyDominospizza”andanotherone“Howto
getfiredfromDominosPizza”,seenby1,338,182and928,908respectively,butthedifferentvideos
donotfeaturethefulllengthoftheoriginalvideo.
5. Analysis
Thefollowingchapterconsistsofthreesections.Inthefirstsection,wewillanalyzedifferent
press statements from the two companies. In the second section, we will analyze a variety of
Chipotle’ssocialmediastatementsonbothFacebookandTwitterandwewillalsoanalyzeavariety
of Domino’s social media statements with same approach. In addition, we will analyze the
commentsfromstakeholdersoneachofthecompanies’socialmediaplatforms.Thelastsectionof
theanalysiswillconsistofacollectionofnewsarticlesandrelatedcommentsregardingChipotleand
two different news segments and related comments regarding Domino’s. Each section of the
analysiswillconcludewithasummary.
5.1 PressStatementsfromChipotleandDomino’s
Inthissectionoftheanalysis,wewillanalyzefivedifferentpressreleases,oneannualreport
andoneletterfromChipotlefollowingtheoutline(p.7,Appendix1).Second,wewillanalyzeone
17 Awriterwhoshareshisorher“ownexperiences,observations,opinions,etc.,andoftenhavingimagesandlinkstootherwebsites“(Dictionary.com,n.d.)
Page 55
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
56
pressstatementandonenewssegmentfromDomino’s.Attheend,weconcludewithacomparison
ofthetwocompanies.
5.1.1 ChipotlePressReleases
FirstPressRelease,November3,2015:
“ChipotleMovesAggressivelytoAddressIssuesinWashingtonandOregon”
ThefirstpressreleasepublishedbyChipotleregardingthehealthsafetyoutbreaksitendured
in2015wasreleasedonlineNovember3,2015via its InvestorRelationspage,andsharedthrough
BusinessWire (Chipotle, 2015).BusinessWire is anonlinepress releasedistribution site (Business
Wire, 2016). As the first incident began in August, we believe that since this was the first press
release, Chipotle’s communication was not quick enough as Coombs suggests the importance of
beingquickaspartof the initial response toa crisis (Coombs,2014).By responding slowly to the
initial incidentwhenChipotledidnot initiatethefirstmovecouldgivestakeholderstimetocreate
their own ideas and potentially rumors as to what was happening. This statement’s content
discussedthatE.Colihadbeenfoundineightof itsrestaurants inOregonandWashington. Italso
mentioned that investigatorswerehandling thesituation.This statement then led toa list format
specifically stating what the company had done to take care of the E. Coli. Throughout this list,
Chipotleusedwords like“immediately”(Appendix5,Line7),“conducting”(Appendix5,Line9and
10), “replacing” (Appendix 5, Line 12) and “continuing” (Appendix 5, Line 14), all of these can be
seen as examples of Chipotle taking corrective action and explaining what it was doing through
bolsteringbecausethewordchoicecouldleadreaderstobelieveChipotleattemptedtoresolvethe
outbreaks.ThislistcouldalsobeawayforChipotletotryandrepairitsimagereputation.
The title of the press release, “ChipotleMovesAggressively toAddress Issues inWashington
andOregon”,couldbeperceivedbystakeholdersasaninsurancethatChipotlewasdoingeverything
initspowertotackletheoutbreakswithinthetwostates,OregonandWashington,addressedinthe
title.Furthermore, theword“aggressively”couldpushstakeholders to interpret thatChipotlewas
readytoattackandtacklethecrisis.Next,thereisaquotefromtheCo-CEOofChipotle,SteveElls
saying,
“The safety of our customers and integrity of our food supply has always been our highest
priority,” said Steve Ells, chairmanand co-CEOof Chipotle. “Weworkwith a number of very
freshingredientsinordertoserveourcustomersthehighest-quality,best-tastingfoodwecan.
If there are opportunities to dobetter,wewill push ourselves to find themand enhance our
alreadyhighstandardsforfoodsafety.Ourdeepestsympathiesgoouttothosewhohavebeen
Page 56
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
57
affectedbythissituationanditisourgreatestprioritytoensurethesafetyofallofthefoodwe
serveandmaintainourcustomers’confidenceineatingatChipotle.”(Appendix5,Lines19-23)
Thisstatement fromEllsmentionedthat foodsafetywasapriority forChipotleandthatthe
companywouldcontinuetoimproveits“alreadyhigh”foodsafety(Appendix5,Line22).Thiscould
beseenasacorrectiveactionandbolstering,whichsuggeststhatagivencompanywillplantosolve
agivenproblemandreminditsstakeholdersofitsgoodreputationprecrisis.Thequotealsostated,
“ourdeepestsympathies”(Appendix5,Line21),whichcouldbeseenasatypeofapologytothose
whohadbeenaffectedbytheoutbreaks.WebelievethisisrelatedtoCoombs’rebuildingposture
with apology as a sub-category in evidence to Benoit’s strategy ofmortification. “Our deepest
sympathies” (Appendix5, Line21) isnota straightforwardapologyas “Iamsorry”wouldbe.This
couldcomeacrossassympathetic,andcouldaccomplishthisthroughtheuseofpathos18.Thiscould
make the linguistic selectionof thispress releaseapologeticbut still formal (Fairclough2014,39).
The quote from Ells also ensured that investigating the outbreaks was at highest priority for
Chipotle. At the end of the press release it stated, “While no cause has yet been identified by
investigating health officials, Chipotle continues to work swiftly and thoroughly with health
departmentofficialsastheylooktoconcludethisinvestigation”(Appendix5,Lines24-25).Weargue
thatbothofthesestatementsensureacorrectiveaction,suggestedbyBenoit,butalsosuggestan
evasionofresponsibilitywithdefeasibilityasthereisalackofinformationandChipotlewasunable
todefineandwasuncertainwhatexactlycausedtheoutbreakatthatpointoftime.Thestatement
followedanitemizedlistofwhatChipotlehaddonetosolvetheproblem,whichcouldbeseenasa
summary to the press release where Chipotle informed stakeholders that there would be more
informationtofollowregardingthecrisis.Whencommunicatingthisway,Chipotlecouldbeworking
towardshavinga transparentcommunicationstrategyby informingstakeholders that therewould
bemoreinformationtofollowandthatthecompanywaswillingtoreportthisinformationregarding
thecrisis.
Coombs(2007),discussesthattherearefourdifferentposturesacompanycanchoosetouse
whenundergoingacrisis.Forthispressrelease,wearguethatChipotlehadchosentherebuilding
posturebyapologizingforwhathadhappened.Withthis,thecompanyalsoremindedstakeholders,
throughboththestrategyandpostureofbolstering,aboutthecompany’sgoodtraits,Chipotletold
stakeholdersaboutitspreviousgoodworkandefforts infoodsafety,e.g.bysaying,“Thesafetyof
our customersand integrityofour food supplyhasalwaysbeenourhighestpriority” (Appendix5,
18Pathosisanargumentativestrategy“evokingpity,compassion,sympatheticsadness”(OxfordReference2016)
Page 57
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
58
Line18) and“... ouralreadyhigh standards for food safety” (Appendix5, Line21)– this couldbe
Chipotle’swayoftryingtorestoreitsimageandstakeholders’perceptionof“FoodwithIntegrity”.
SecondPressRelease,November10,2015:
“ChipotletoReopenNorthwestRestaurants”
ThispressreleasewaspostedonChipotle’sInvestorRelationpageandsharedonBusinessWire
onNovember10,2015(Chipotle,2015).Chipotlenotedinitsby-line“AlltestresultsnegativeforE.
Coli;noongoing threat.” (Appendix6, Line2). This couldbe interpretedasan initial statement to
havereadersbepreemptedwiththemostimportantinformationbeforereadingthepressrelease.
The press release continued to say that Chipotle would be opening the 43 restaurants in
Washington and Oregon that were “voluntarily” (Appendix 6, Line 4) closed. Using the word
“voluntarily”couldbeinterpretedasChipotlewasdoingeverythingthattheCDCwasrequestingof
it, insteadof forcingChipotle to abideby instructions. This couldbeChipotlewanting to show its
stakeholders itswillingness to correct its actions,which couldbe referred toas corrective action,
andpotentiallyregainitsimage.
Theentirepressrelease’scontentfocusedonwhatChipotlehaddoneineffortstoconclude
thecrisis,whichcouldbeseenasoneofCoombs’crisisresponsestrategiesknownasbolsteringwith
remindingasasub-strategy.Althoughthedefinitionofbolsteringstemsfromanorganizationtalking
aboutitspastgoodtraits,wearguethatalthoughatthetimeofthepublicationofthepressrelease,
all of the efforts of what it had accomplished were essentially in the past. Also, since Chipotle
endured several incidents that added up to one large crisis, by listing everything and reminding
stakeholderswhatthecompanyhadalreadyaccomplished,couldbehelpingChipotlebyreminding
its stakeholdersofhowactiveChipotlewas. Furthermore, Ells also stated that,“The safetyof our
customersand integrityofour foodsupplyhasalwaysbeenourhighestpriority” (Appendix6,Line
41),whichmayindicatethatChipotlewasalwaysthinkingaboutfoodsafety.Atthattimeandprior
tothefoodsafetyoutbreaksof2015,webelievethatthecompanywastryingtoreferandremind
thereceiverofthatbyremaininginthebolsteringposture,as“FoodwithIntegrity”wasChipotle’s
originalmotto.
Fromanotherpointofview,bylistingallofthetasksChipotlehadaccomplishedinorderto
resolve the E. Coli outbreaks, it could be interpreted as reassurance of Benoit’s corrective action
strategyinanefforttorepairitsimage.Inaddition,termssuchas“conductingadditional”(Appendix
6,Line8),“replacingallingredients”(Appendix6,Line9),“workingwithhealthofficials”(Appendix
6, Line 12), “actively assisting” (Appendix 6, Line 26) and “conducting independent testing”
Page 58
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
59
(Appendix6,Line24),couldbeinterpretedbystakeholders,dependingontheirperceptionsofthe
crisis, that Chipotle had done everything possible to take care of the contamination in its 43
restaurantsontheWestCoastoftheUnitedStatesinanofficialandpropermanner.
AfterthelengthylistoftasksChipotlehadaccomplishedtoresolvetheE.Coli,thepressrelease
endedwithaquotefromtheCo-CEO,SteveElls,
“The safety of our customers and integrity of our food supply has always been our highest
priority. If thereareanyopportunities forus todobetter inany facetofour souringor food
handling—fromthefarmstoourrestaurants—wewillfindthem.Wearesorrytothoseaffected
bythissituationanditisourgreatestprioritytoensurethatwegoaboveandbeyondtomake
certainthatwefindanyopportunitytodobetterinanyareaoffoodsafety.”(Appendix6,Lines
41-46)
TheimpressionwhenreadingthisquotefromtheCo-CEOofChipotlecouldbeinterpretedas
sincere,whichcouldleadtoasuccessfulcrisiscommunicationstrategybychangingthelanguageto
be perceived asmore sympathetic (Fairclough 2014, 39) compared to the firstmedia statement,
whereitstated,“Ourdeepestsympathiesgoouttothosewhohavebeenaffectedbythissituation”
(Appendix5,Line21).Withadirectapology,suchas“wearesorry to thoseaffected”(Appendix6,
Lines43-44),couldleadstakeholderstobelievethatChipotle’smessagewasmorerelatable,where
Chipotlecouldhaverealizedtheeffectthecrisishadhadon itsstakeholdersandon itsreputation
nationwide therefore needing to rebuild its image. This could be in relation to one of Coombs’
strategies known as the rebuilding posture with apology as a sub-strategy, where the company
takesfullresponsibilityforthecrisis.Whenendingthepressrelease,itismentionedthatadditional
informationcanbefoundonChipotle’swebsite.Wefindthistobeasuccessfulstrategy–itcouldbe
perceivedasChipotlewantingtokeepitsstakeholdersup-to-dateanditcouldalsogiveChipotlethe
opportunitytotrytocontroltheinformationbypostingitonitsownwebsite.
ThirdPressRelease,November20,2015:
“ChipotleUpdatesonE.ColiInvestigation”
ThispressreleasewaspublishedonChipotle’sInvestorRelationspageandwasalsosharedon
BusinessWireonNovember20,2015(Chipotle,2015).Stakeholderscouldperceivethetitleofthis
pressreleaseasthecrisiswasnotover,duetotheuseoftheterm‘updates’.Thisisconfirmedwhen
thepressreleasestatedthat,“ChipotleMexicanGrillcontinuestoworkcloselywithstateandfederal
Page 59
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
60
health officials” (Appendix 7, Lines 2-3). Furthermore, in the introduction to the press release,
Chipotle was very specific with details through its explanatory language, which could lead to
transparencyandcertainty,e.g.“…continuestoworkcloselywithstateandfederalhealthofficials”
(Appendix7,Lines2-3).
InrelationtoChipotle’sexplanatorylinguisticselection,Chipotlecontinuedtosharewhatthe
CDChaddone to reveal findings in the investigation. ThroughCDC’s findings,Chipotle stated that
thenumberofcasesrelatedtoChipotledecreasedfromtheoriginalamountandthepressrelease
saidthat,
“TheCentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention(CDC)reducedthenumberofcasesconnected
toChipotlefrom50to37casesonNovember18(with24inWashingtonand13inOregon).This
reductionofnearly25%wasbaseduponmoresensitivetestingwhichrevealedthecaseswere
notrelatedtoChipotle.TheCDChasinformedChipotlethatitidentifiedsixadditionalcasesin
whichinitialtestingmatchestheE.colistraininvolvedintheWashingtonandOregonincident.
AlthoughoneoftheindividualshasnoknownlinktoChipotle,fiveindividualsdidreporteating
atChipotle,includingtwoinTurlock,Calif.,oneinAkron,Ohio,oneinAmherst,NY,andonein
Burnsville,Minn.”(Appendix7,Lines5-11)
Inattempttorepairitsimage,thecontentinthequoteabovestatedinformationthatcouldbe
seen as corrective action, whereas situational context in the first press release (Appendix 5)
publishedbyChipotlewasnotabletogivespecificdetailsbecausetherewasalackofinformation,
which lead to an evasion of responsibility. In this press release, Chipotle avoided to evade
responsibility because it was able to inform its stakeholders with factual information. Although,
ChipotleinformedthatitwaspossiblynotresponsibleforalloftheE.Colicasessinceitcouldnotbe
connectedthroughtesting(Appendix7,Line7).Chipotledidacceptandacknowledgethecasesthat
were connected to its locations inWashington andOregon through testing. This could be one of
Benoit’sfivestrategies,knownasmortification,similartoCoombs’rebuildingposturewithapology
assub-strategy.Thisstrategysuggeststhatagivencompanyorpersonadmititswrongdoingandask
for forgiveness,whichChipotlealsodidbystating,“Weofferoursincerestapologies to thosewho
havebeenaffected”(Appendix7,Line32).
Also,inthispressrelease,Chipotlementionedthestepsthatithadtakeninrespondingtothe
crisisthroughanexplanatorylanguagebyusingwordssuchas“aggressivesteps”(Appendix7,Line
16), “we take this incident very seriously” (Appendix 7, Line 28) and “conducted deep cleaning”
(Appendix 7, Line 19). Following the explanatory language, Chipotle continued with a statement
Page 60
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
61
from Steve Ells, the Co-CEO. In this statement, he stated the importance of food safety and the
importanceofChipotle’scustomers,reassuringthatChipotlewoulddoanythingtosolvethecrisis.
Coombs (2015) stresses the importance of stakeholders during a crisis. We argue that Chipotle
achievedthisbymakingitsstakeholdersitsfirstpriority.Afterthis,Ellscontinuedwithanapologyto
those who had been affected by the actions and reassured with an explanatory language that
Chipotlewoulddoanything to solve thismatter - this couldbe seenasoneofBenoit’s strategies
knownascorrective actionwherea given companyexplainswhat itwill do topreventor solvea
givencrisisfromhappeningagain.
Attheendofthepressrelease, itwasmentioned,“AccordingtotheCDC,thereareabout48
million cases of food-related illness in the U.S. annually, including 265,000 cases of E. Coli.”
(Appendix 7, Lines 36-37). This statement could be perceived as being one of Coombs’ strategies
called diminishing posture with justification as a sub-category - we argue that this could be
Chipotle’sattempttodiminishthesignificanceofE.ColibyinformingitsstakeholdersthatChipotle
isnottheonlyrestauranttohaveenduredanoutbreakofE.Coli.
FourthPressRelease,December4,2015:
“ChipotleCommitstoBecomeIndustryLeaderinFoodSafety”
This press releasewas publishedonDecember 4, 2015onChipotle’s Investor Relation page
and published onBusinessWire (Chipotle, 2015). From the title of this press release, it could be
perceivedthatChipotlewasstillworkingtowards,andpromisingtobecomemoreinvolvedwithits
foodsafety.Coombsdiscussestheimportanceofnotmakingpromisesthatonecannotkeepduring
a crisis (2015). The by-line in the press release stated that Chipotlewas continuing toworkwith
officialsandthatnoillnesseshavebeenreportedsinceNovember(Appendix8,Lines2-3).
ThetopicofthispressreleasestayswithinthesubjectofwhatChipotlehaddonetoaccomplish
safer food practices. It also stated that Chipotle had been working with the Laboratory and
ConsultingGroup, IEH. Therewas a quote included in thepress release from IEH’s CEO,Mansour
Samadpour, expressing that, “While Chipotle’s food safety practices were already well within
industrynorms,Iwasaskedtodesignamorerobustfoodsafetyprogramtoensurethehighestlevel
ofsafetyandthebestqualityofallmealsservedatChipotle.”(Appendix8,Lines8-10).Thereason
forChipotletoincludethisquotecouldbethatthecompanywasworkingwithCoombs’bolstering
posture,remindingstakeholdersaboutChipotle’spasteffortsinthetopicoffoodsafety.
The CEO of the consulting group informed that the program was adapted into Chipotle
completely,whichwould sendChipotle tobe “the industry leader in this area.” (Appendix 8, Line
Page 61
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
62
13).IncludingthesequotescouldbeapartofChipotle’simagerestorationprocessasitsimagehas
possiblybeenhurt.Itisimportanthowthepublicperceivesthecompanyas,“perceptionsaremore
importantthanreality”(MillarandHealth2004,246).“FoodwithIntegrity”isChipotle’smottoand
that couldhavebeensomestakeholders’perceptionof thecompany,butnowboth stakeholders’
realityandperceptionsofChipotlecouldhavechangedaftertheongoingfoodsafetycrisis.Having
these outbreaksmay have brought Chipotle’smotto into question, and by juxtapositioning these
quotes could be a way to inform its stakeholders that the company was taking action and
committingtobecomeanindustryleaderinfoodsafety.Webelievethisdecisionwasmadeinorder
totrytoshiftthestakeholders’perceptionsbacktoChipotle’soriginalmotto.
The press release continued by stating that through testing there had been no concrete
evidenceshowingnorelationbetweenChipotleandE.Colianymore,
“Thousandsof foodsample tests fromChipotle restaurants linkedto the incidenthaveshown
noE.coli.NoingredientsthatarelikelytohavebeenconnectedtothisincidentremaininChipotle’s
restaurantsorinitssupplysystem.NoChipotleemployeeshavebeenidentifiedashavingE.colisince
thisincidentbegan”(Appendix8,Lines36-38)
Althoughthepressreleasementionedthattherewasnoexactlink,bychoosingthewordsof
“thatarelikely”(Appendix8,Lines36-37),couldinsinuateuncertainty.ThroughChipotle’slinguistic
selection,webelievethatalthoughthereisnoactuallink,byusing“likely”onecouldinterpretitasif
itwasnotanactualfact,butmorealikelihood.
Focusing further on the linguistic selection of this press release, it used formal explanatory
languageby sharing specificallywhat Chipotle haddone since the last press release inNovember
2015,forexample,“Chipotlehassetanobjectivetoachievethehighestlevelofsafetypossible.The
companyretainedSeattle-based IEHLaboratories…” (Appendix8,Lines20-21).Chipotle includeda
listofthetestingandimprovementsthatithadconductedwhileusingtheconsultinggroupIEH,and
Chipotleusedtermssuchas“implementing”(Appendix8,Line27),“initiating”(appendix8,Line30),
“pursuing continuous improvements” (Appendix 8, Line 32) and “enhancing internal training”
(Appendix8,Line34)-thiscouldbeseenasawaytoshowactionandtherebypossiblyconvinceits
stakeholdersthataprogresshasbeenmade.
Thispressreleaseendedwithpossiblebolsteringposturewithremindingasasub-categoryas
theCo-CEO,SteveElls,expressedknowledgeaboutChipotleanditseffortstowardsfoodsafety.Like
thepreviouspress release (Appendix7),Chipotlementioned that thereareabout48million food
violationrelatedcases,thepressreleasespecificallymentionedthevolumeofE.Colioutbreaks.We
Page 62
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
63
believeattheendofthispressrelease,Chipotlewasworkingtowardsrestoringitsimagebystating
“Chipotlehascontinuedtoservemorethan1millioncustomersadayinitsrestaurantsnationwide
withoutincident.”(Appendix8,Lines45-46).Thisstatementcouldbeanefforttoregainitsimageas
wellastoreminditsstakeholdersthat itsdoorsarestillopenandsomecustomershaveremained
loyal to thebrand.At theendof thepress release,Chipotlementioned that therewasadditional
informationonitswebsitewhichcouldcreateasenseoftransparentcommunicationasseeninallof
theabovementionedpressreleases.
FifthPressRelease,January19,2016:
“NewChipotleFoodSafetyProceduresLargelyinPlace;CompanyWillShareLearningsfrom2015
OutbreaksatAll-TeamMeeting”
ThispressreleasewaspublishedonJanuary19,2016onChipotle’sInvestorRelationspage,and
also sharedonBusinessWire (Chipotle, 2016). Theby-line for this press release stated that there
would be a nationwidemeeting on February 8, 2016 from11 am to 3 pm,whichwould result in
closingallChipotlelocationsduringthattime.Webelievethispressreleaseisdifferentcomparedto
thefourotherpressreleasesduetothecontentprimarilyfocusedonChipotle’semployeesandnot
thecrisis.
The beginning of the press release stated that a meeting had been scheduled to thank its
employees for their work in relation to “implementing Chipotle’s comprehensive new food safety
programs intheirrestaurants” (Appendix9,Lines5-6).Statingthis informationcouldbeChipotle’s
approachtotrytoregainitsimage.Beingtransparentcouldalsohelpstakeholdersinunderstanding
whatChipotlehadbeendoingtoaccomplishbetterfoodsafetyinitslocationsnationwide.
ChipotlecontinuedwithanexplanatorylanguagebyquotingitsCo-CEO,SteveElls,bystating
what the company had implemented into Chipotle’s food safety plan along with detailed
information about the testing that it had been accomplish. Furthermore, Ells stated that Chipotle
alsohadimplementedpaidsickleaveforitsemployees.
Throughprocessanalysis,wearguethattherewerethreemajorpurposesofthispressrelease
- informing the receiver that all of Chipotle’s locations would close nationwide for a four-hour
meeting,thanking itsemployeesand informingthereceiveraboutthe initiativesthecompanyhad
taken.
Page 63
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
64
Chipotlestatedthat,“ThemeetingwillbebroadcastlivefromDenvertohundredsoflocations
across the country. In order to allow all employees to attend, the company will be closing its
restaurants for lunch that day” (Appendix 9, Lines 28-29).We argue that itwas a big decision to
closealllocationsnationwide,andwebelievethiscanbeperceivedasbothpositiveandnegativeby
its stakeholders. It could be perceived positively that Chipotle wanted to make sure that all
employees had the opportunity to be educated in the new comprehensive food safety program
(Appendix 9, Lines 5-7), and thereby be able to assure the best possible food safety for its
stakeholders. It could also be seen as a negative view as stakeholders might not be able to
comprehendthesituationiftheydidnotseethepressreleasetheycouldquestion“whyisthisstore
closed?”and“what isChipotledoing?”.Thiscouldend
by creating a mystery or potentially rumors of why
Chipotlelocationswereclosedforfivehours-thisisof
course only if people had not read the press release.
We argue that Chipotle expected customers to not
know about the meeting and stores closing, so the
companyplacedamemooneachdoorofeachlocation
stating, “BRB (Be Right Back) We’re closed for lunch
today to attend ameeting with all the other Chipotle
employees.Butdon’tworry,we’llbebackopenat3pm.
Ifwemessedupyour lunchplans, letusmake itup to
you: visit Chipotle.com/raincheck see you soon” (BMI
Elite,2016).
WearguethatChipotleusedtwoofCoombs’andBenoit’ssuggestedstrategiesthroughoutthe
whole press release; the bolstering posture (Coombs)/reducing offensiveness (Benoit) and
correctiveaction(Benoit).Chipotlestressedthepositiveactionsithadaccomplishedandwantedto
accomplish, e.g. by stating, “Additionally, we have implemented unprecedented food safety
standards with our suppliers, which make the food coming into our restaurants safer than ever
before” (Appendix9, Lines12-13) and “Over the last fewmonths,wehavebeen implementingan
enhancedfoodsafetyplanthatwillestablishChipotleasanindustryleaderinfoodsafety”(Appendix
9, Lines9-10), togetherbysequencingdetailed information ina list formatofwhatspecificaction
Chipotlewould take (Appendix 9, Lines 18-27), and in thatway remind its stakeholders of all the
goodaccomplishmentsChipotlealreadyhaddoneandwoulddo.Wearguethiscouldbeconnected
to corrective action (Benoit)whereChipotle listed andmentioned all the tasks the companywas
planningtodoinordertoavoidandpreventsimilarcasesfromhappeninginthefuture.
BMIElite,2016
Page 64
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
65
FourthQuarterAnnualReport,February2,2016:
“Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Announces Fourth quarter and Full Year 2015 Results, CDC
InvestigationOver;ChipotleWelcomesCustomersBacktoRestaurants”
Themajorityofthecontent inthisreportfocusedonthefourthquarterandfullyearresults.
Sincealargeportionofthisreportisnotapplicabletothisthesis,wehaveselectedthepartsrelated
totheon-goingcrisisin2015.Althoughweareonlyanalyzingpartsofthisreport,theentirereport
willbeincludedinAppendix10.
This reportwaspublishedonFebruary2,2016viaChipotle’s InvestorRelation’spageandon
BusinessWire(Chipotle,2016).Thereportbeganwiththe‘highlights’ofChipotle’sfourthquarterin
comparison to 2014’s fourth quarter. Using a list format, Chipotle stated its decreases regarding
accountsof revenue, sales, operatingmargin, net incomeanddilutedearningsper share. Being a
partoftheNewYorkStockExchange,Chipotleisapubliccompany,thereforeitisrequiredbylawto
report this information (NYSE MKT, 2016). We do not believe publishing this information is a
communication tactic as the companywas required to report this, as this genre of this text is an
annual report. After reporting its decreases, it communicated that Chipotle opened 79 new
restaurantsas theconclusionof this list.Thenextpartwasalso in list format,which included the
highlightsfromitstwelve-monthcalendaryearincomparisontothepreviousyear.Here,therewere
moreincreasesversusdecreases.Webelievethroughthecompany’slayoutoflistingitsinformation,
Chipotlestartedwiththenegativetoendofapositivenote-webelievethisistobolsteritsimageto
itsstakeholders.
ThisreportcontinuedwithaquotefromCo-CEOSteveElls,noting,“Thefourthquarterof2015
was the most challenging period in Chipotle’s history, but the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has now concluded its investigation into the recent E. Coli incidents associated with
Chipotle.”(Appendix10,Lines20-22)Thisquotecouldbeseenasanattempttoberelatablewithits
stakeholders through its communication. The quote was followed by Chipotle declaring its
correctiveaction,whichwebelieve istorestoreChipotle’s imagethroughstatementssuchas“we
areextremelyfocused”(Appendix10,Line23)and“enhancedsafetymeasures” (Appendix10,Line
24).After,Chipotlebolstered its imagebystating,“Byaddingtheseprogramstoanalreadystrong
andprovenfoodculture,westronglybelievethatwecanestablishChipotleasaleaderinfoodsafety
justaswehavebecomealeaderinourquestfortheverybest ingredientswecanfind.” (Appendix
10,Lines25-27).
Page 65
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
66
This report continued toexpandon the fourthquarter2015 results. In this section,Chipotle
published, “the decrease in comparable restaurant sales was due to publicity during the quarter
surrounding food-borne illness incidents associated with a number of Chipotle restaurants.”
(Appendix10,Lines31-33).Webelievethiswastogivereasonforthedecreases.Thistransparency
in its communicationcontinued throughout the report,especiallywhen informing its stakeholders
thatChipotlewasservedasubpoenabytheU.SAttorney’sofficefortheCentralDistrictofCalifornia
(Appendix 10, Lines 70-74). When publishing this, Chipotle was very explanatory exposing
informationinregardstothislegalaction.
AquotefromtheCo-CEO,MontyMoran,wasincludedwhereheexpressedthatChipotlewas
ready towelcome back customers to stores and acknowledged that 2016will be a tough year in
comparison to the past. This quote could be interpreted as an intimate discourse by stating its
correctiveactionandadmittingthat ithadbeenhardonChipotle.Throughouttheentiretyofthis
report,webelievethatChipotletookinaccountforbothCoombs’strategyofabolsteringposture
by reminding its stakeholders about its past good work and achievements along with Benoit’s
strategytotakecorrectiveactiontorestoreitsimagetopre-crisisstatus.
ALetterfromChipotleFounderSteveElls,December16,2015:
“ComprehensiveFoodSafetyPlan”
This letter was from Steve Ells, the Co-CEO of Chipotle. This specific copy of the letter was
published in the Chicago Tribune on December 16, 2015 (Appendix 11). It was also released on
Chipotle’s Twitter account the same day (Appendix 15, 19).We argue that from the title of this
letter,thecontentcouldbetogiveanupdatefromthecompanytoitsstakeholdersofthecorrective
actionsChipotlehaddone.Theby-lineoftheletterwas“ALetterfromChipotleFounderSteveElls”
(Appendix11,LinesX-0).Thiscouldleadthereceiver,mostlikelyitsstakeholders,toknowthatthe
followingletterwasfromapersonofpoweratChipotlewithknowledgeofeveryaspectoftheon-
goingcrisis.WebelievethatthiscouldleadstakeholderstotrustwhatEllssaidinthisletterbecause
ofhispositioninthecompany.
ThefirstparagraphintheletterfromEllsusedpersonallinguistics,webelievethisduetothe
useof‘me’and‘my’,e.g.inline1(Appendix11).Ellsalsocontinuedtousethestrategyofbolstering
by stating, “From the beginning, all of our food safety programs have met or exceeded industry
standards” (Appendix11, Lines2-3) - reminding the receiver thatChipotlehadalwaysbeenup to
standards.Followingthat,theCo-CEOwasverytransparentwhileadmittingthatthereweremultiple
outbreakssurroundingChipotle’sfoodsafetyandthatChipotle“need[ed]todobetter,muchbetter”
Page 66
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
67
(Appendix 11, Line 5). This statement could be the approach of corrective action by being
transparent with its stakeholders and expressing certainty that the companywould acknowledge
thatsomethinghadtobedonetobetteritself.
From the beginning, this letter had used authentic candor throughout the selection of
language. This is especially apparent when Ells stated that, “The fact that anyone has become ill
eatingatChipotleiscompletelyunacceptabletomeandIamdeeplysorry”(Appendix11,Lines6-7).
Afterthatstatement,Ellsturnedtosharethecompany’scorrectiveactiontotrytorestoreitsimage
by being transparent and expressing everything that Chipotle had done to make its food safety
betterthanitwaspre-crisis.
While sharing with stakeholders what Chipotle had done to improve its food safety, the
languagewasveryprofessional,explanatory, informativeandclearwhichagaincouldhavegivena
transparent communication, e.g. “Iwant to sharewith our customers specifics about someof the
significantstepswearetakingtobesureallofthefoodweserveisassafeasitcanbe”(Appendix
11,Lines9-10).ThislettertookitstimeininformingabouteverystepandprocessthatChipotlehad,
andwould do, to better its food safety. Although some could interpret this letter as transparent,
somemightarguethatitwasnotsincetheCo-CEOnevergavespecificsastohoworwhatChipotle
actuallyhaddone,e.g.“wecollaboratedwithpreeminent foodsafetyexperts” (Appendix11,Lines
11-12)and“weareimplementinghigh-resolutionandtestingofmanyofouringredients”(Appendix
11, Lines 16-17) – some would wonder who those experts were and how the tests would be
conducted.
Moving from the explanatory discourse, Ells continued by reporting the realistic perspective
thathadtobetakeninaccountforwhendealingwithfoodsafety.AlthoughChipotlewouldliketo
eliminateall risks, the companyadmitted that there isnoway for it tobe100percent safeat all
times.Thiscouldbeseenasasenseofinsuranceforthepossiblefuturefoodsafetycrisesthatthe
companymightendureand itcouldalsobeChipotlenotmakingpromises,asCoombssuggests to
avoidpromisesduringacrisis.Followingthis,EllspraisedChipotleforwhat ithadaccomplished in
the past, bolstering its image by reminding stakeholders of all the good the company had
accomplished, e.g. “... we are known for using the very best ingredients in a fast food setting”
(Appendix 11, Line 8). We believe that through this letter, and the choice of language and
information included,weargue thatChipotlebelieved that ithaddoneeverythingpossibleat this
timetosolvethecrisis,e.g.,“Chipotleisanincrediblyfocusedcompany”(Appendix11,Line29)and
“restassuredthatwehavelookedateachoftheseingredients.”(Appendix11,Line31).
The letterendedwithapowerfulandconfidentstatementofpositivity,“wearenotgoingto
shyawayfromthisnewchallenge.”(Appendix11,Lines34-35).Thiscouldhavegivenstakeholders
Page 67
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
68
certainty throughChipotle’s linguistic selectionbyexpressing confidence.After this, Ells statedan
apologyandthankedcustomersfortheirloyalty-thiscouldbeseenasusingBenoit’smortification
strategyinevidencetoCoombs’rebuildingposturewithapologyasasub-category.
5.1.2 Domino’sStatements
Inthissection,wewillanalyzetwostatementsfromDomino’s.Thefirststatementisapress
release fromDomino’swebsiteand thesecond isaYouTubevideostatement fromDomino’sCEO
PatrickDoyle.
PressStatement,April14,2009:“UpdatetoourValuedCustomers”
This press releasewas published onDomino’swebsite April 14, 2009 (BrianSolis April 15,
2009). It is a short statement with the title “Update to our Valued Customers” and the content
containedwhathadhappenedfromwhenDomino’swasalertedtowhenthepressstatementwas
published. This press statement focused on the two employees behind the undesirable video on
YouTube. We argue that Domino’s used Coombs’ denial posture with the sub-category of
scapegoating in evidence to Benoit’sdenial strategy by shifting the blame in the first part of the
statement.Here,Domino’sstated,
“Theopportunitiesandfreedomoftheinternetiswonderful.Butitalsocomeswiththerisk
ofanyonewithacameraandaninternetlinktocausealotofdamage,asinthiscase,where
acoupleof individualssuddenlyovershadowthehardworkperformedbythe125,000men
andwomenworkingforDomino’sacrossthenationandin60countriesaroundtheworld.”
(Appendix12,Lines11-15)
Weargue thatDomino’swas trying to appear as a victimwhich could be connectedwith
Coombs’bolsteringposturewithvictimageasasub-strategywhereDomino’scouldhavefeltlikeit
hadbeenexposedtothedangersoftheInternetandpeople's’accesstoit.Furthermore,Domino’s
madesuretomentionthatitwasacompanythatworkedhardandemployed125,000employeesin
60countriesworldwide.Tous,thiscouldbeseenasanotheraspectofCoombs’bolsteringposture
withremindingasasub-strategysimilartoBenoit’sreducingoffensivenesswiththesub-strategyof
bolsteringasDomino’swasremindingpeoplewhatgoodworkthecompanyhaddonebefore.
Page 68
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
69
Attheendofthepressstatement,Domino’sstated,“Weapologizefortheactionsofthese
individuals,andthankyouforyourcontinuedsupportofDomino’sPizza”(Appendix12,Lines17-18).
Through the linguistic selection, this sentence indicated that Domino’s was sorry for what had
happened.Due to the latter, thecompanyused themortification strategyofBenoitandCoombs’
rebuilding posturewithapologyas a sub-strategy. The language in thispress statementwas very
informativeandexplanatory.
YouTubeVideoStatement,April15,2009:
“Domino’sPresidentRespondsToPrankVideo”
ThisstatementwaspublishedApril15,2009viaYouTube.Thisstatementisthesecondofficial
statement made by Domino’s regarding the publication of the undesirable video made by two
employees. The sender was Domino’s with Patrick Doyle as a spokesperson, and he began the
statementbypresentinghimself.Aftertheveryshortpresentation,headdressedthe incidentand
endedthestatementbythankingpeoplewhoweresupportiveofDomino’s.
AccordingtoCoombs’SCCT,therearefourstrategiesonecanusewhenacompanywantsto
“repair the reputation, to reduce negative affect and to prevent negative behavioral intentions”
(Coombs 2007, 170). In Domino’s case and in this specific statement, we argue that Domino’s
utilized threeoutof the four strategies.PatrickDoyle took full responsibility for the situationand
thereby he did not use the denial posture or attack the accuser and he did not deny what had
happened. However, we argue that the strategy of scapegoating, which is a sub-strategy of the
denialposture,wasslightlyusedasDoylementionedthetwoemployeeswhocreatedthevideo.We
do not see this as a fully incorporated strategy as he immediately after stated, “we sincerely
apologizeforthisincident”(Appendix13,Line3).Laterinthestatement,Doylestated,“itsickensme
thattheactionsoftwoindividualscouldimpactourgreatsystem”(Appendix13,Lines17-18).Itwas
clearthatDoyledidnotlikethepositionDomino’swasputinbythetwoemployeesanditwasnot
intended. People are looking for someone or something to blame during a crisis situation, and
thereforewearguethatDoyleusedthisstrategytoshifttheblamefromDomino’sasacompanyto
the two individualemployeeswhoactuallycaused theundesirableactions.Even thoughDomino’s
tookresponsibility,itstillmadesuretomentionthetwoemployees,butwedonotbelievethiswas
afulluseofCoombs’scapegoatingstrategyastherestofthestatement’scontentconcentratedon
whatDomino’sdidforcorrectiveaction.
WearguethatDomino’susedrebuildingpostureandbolsteringpostureaswell.Forthefirst
strategy, Doyle used the sub-strategy apologywhere he publicly stated thatDomino’swas taking
Page 69
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
70
responsibility.Inthethirdline,asstatedabove,Doylesaid“wesincerelyapologizeforthisincident”
(Appendix13,Line3)andthroughouttheentirestatement,Doyleemphasizeditscorrectiveactions
e.g.statingthatitsanitizedthelocationandre-examineditshiringpractices(Appendix13,Lines10-
15).
The last strategy used is the bolstering posture. Here, Domino’s used the sub-strategy of
ingratiationwhereDoylepraisedDomino’sstakeholders.Inthethirdtofourthlineofthestatement,
Doylestatedthat,“Wethankmembersoftheonlinecommunitywhoquicklyalertedusandallowed
us to take immediate action” (Appendix 13, Lines 3-5) and ended by saying, “There are somany
people who have come forward withmessages of support for us, and we want to thank you for
hangingintherewithusasweworktoregainyourtrust.Thankyou”(Appendix13,Lines22-24).The
linguisticselectioncouldshowthatDomino’sreallyappreciateditsstakeholders.Thisgoeshandin
handwithBenoit’sstrategycorrectiveactionasDomino’splannedtosolvewhathadhappenedand
emphasizedthatthroughthisstatement.
Analyzingthestatementmoreindepth,wenoticedifferent language.Asstatedabove,Doyle
mentionedthepeoplebehindtheundesirableactseveraloftimes,buthedidnotrefertothemby
name. He used terms as “Domino’s team members” (Appendix 13, Line 2) and “individuals”
(Appendix13,Line6and18).Webelievethiscouldbeintendedbecauseofconfidentialityreasons.
ThiscouldalsobeanattempttodistancethetwoindividualsfromDomino’s.Inline2to3(Appendix
13),Doylereferredtotheactas“afunnyYouTubehoax”whichwebelievecreatesacertaindistance
betweenDomino’s and the prank video. By usingwords as “funny” and “hoax”,we argue that it
alteredthediscoursebyusinginformalwords.Laterhestated,“althoughtheindividualsinquestion
claimit’sahoax,wearetakingthisincrediblyseriously”(Appendix13,Lines6-7).Here,thereceiver
mightfeelthatDomino’stooktheveryseriously,andwebelievethatDoylemighthadchosenthe
words“funny”and“hoax”toavoidanydirectnegativitythatcouldbeconnectedtoDomino’simage.
Already in line three, Doyle apologized, and continued by thanking people who alerted
Domino’s, which allowed the company “to take immediate action” (Appendix 13, Lines 4-5).We
believe this showedstakeholders thatDomino’scouldbeperceivedas reliable.The receivercould
interpretthisasDomino’stakencorrectiveactionassoonasitwasalerted.Ifwelookatthebigger
picture,we know thatDomino’s published this press statement two days after the companywas
alerted.
In line 7 (Appendix 13), Doyle stated that it was an isolated incident, more specifically in
Conover,NorthCarolina.WearguethatDomino’schosethewords“isolatedincident”toemphasize
that this only took place at one specific location. This could be the company’s way of trying to
controlthecrisisfromspreadingandbecominganationwidecrisis.
Page 70
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
71
Throughouttheentirestatement, the languagewasveryexplanatory–Doyleexplainedwhat
had happened and what actions Domino’s had taken. We believe this could be interpreted as
transparent communication, e.g.whenDoyle stated, “it is not a surprise that this caused a lot of
damage to our brand” (Appendix 13, Line 17). In addition, Doyle stated, “There is nothing more
importantorsacredtous thanourcustomers trust” (Appendix13,Line10),“Wetaketremendous
pride in craftingdelicious food that theydeliver to youeveryday” (Appendix13, Lines21-22) and
lastly“wewanttothankyouforhangingintherewithusasweworktoregainyourtrust.Thankyou”
(Appendix 13, Lines 23-24) – this again, could have been Doyle emphasizing what Domino’s had
done inordertorecoverandgaincontrol.Furthermore,Doyleusedpronounssuchas ‘we’(e.g. in
line1),‘you’and‘your’(e.g.inline21and24).Thiscouldhaveaffectedthereceivertofeelspoken
toindividuallyversusalargegroupofpeople.
5.1.3 SummaryonChipotleandDomino’sPressReleasesandStatements
Theorganizational imagemanagementtheorybyMasseydiscussesaprocessmodel including
creatinganimage,maintainanimageandregaininganimage,ifnecessary.Allthreeofthesesteps
withinthemodelareadialectcommunicationprocess.WearguethatbothChipotleandDomino’s
havebeenexposedtoincidentswhichmeantthatbothofthecompaniesmovedtothethirdstepof
themodel;regainingone’simage.
Prior to Domino’s incident with the undesirable video on YouTube, we argue that the
company’s image was created and maintained in accordance to Massey’s organizational image
management model. As stated above, due to the undesirable video posted on YouTube by two
employees fromDomino’s, thecompany found itself in thepositionofhaving to regain its image.
Whenlookingatthefindings intheanalysissection5.1.2,wearguethatDomino’striedtorestore
andregainitsimage.ThereisatendencythatDomino’susedBenoit’sstrategiesofdenialwiththe
sub-strategy of shift the blame, reducing offensiveness with the sub-strategy of bolstering and
mortification – this is in evidence to Coombs strategies ofdenial posturewith scapegoating as a
sub-strategy,bolstering posture with both reminding and victim as sub-strategies and rebuilding
posturewithapologyassub-strategy.
According to Coombs’ SCCT, there can be three different types of crisis; victim cluster,
accidentalclusterand intentionalcluster.Weargue thatDomino’scrisis is characterizedbyvictim
cluster with rumor as sub-category. A rumor is when false and damaging information about an
organizationisbeingcirculated(Coombs2007,168).WearguethatthisistheclusterDomino’scrisis
shouldbe labeledwithastwoemployeesfromDomino’spublished information informofavideo
withdamaginginformation,whichprovedtobefalseaccordingtoPatrickDoyle’s,thePresidentof
Page 71
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
72
Domino’s USA, press statement from April 15, 2009, where he referred to the act as a “funny
YouTubehoax”(Appendix13).
Prior to Chipotle’s food safety crisis in 2015, we argue that its image was created and
maintainedasrecommendedaccordingtoMassey’smodel.Currently,Chipotlecouldbeundergoing
theregainingimagestepwithintheprocessmodel,whichcaneitherbesuccessfulorunsuccessful.
When analyzing Chipotle’s crisis communication strategy with Coombs’ SCCT, we argue that
Chipotle’songoingcrisiscanbelabeledwiththeintentional/preventableclusterwithhumanerror
of product harm as a sub-category,where human error causes a product to be recalled (Coombs
2007,168).Anothersub-categorythatChipotlecouldbelabeledwithisorganizationalmisdeedwith
injuries where stakeholders are placed at risk bymanagement and injuries occur (Coombs 2007,
168).
Coombs recommends several crisis communication strategies. Analyzing the steps that
Chipotle took in trying tosolve itscrisis,webelieve that it chose to followtherebuildingposture
withapologyasa sub-categoryandbolstering posturewith remindingasa sub-strategy.Chipotle
released several press releases where it also continued to remind stakeholders about its prior
reputationwithin food safety, and the companymade sure to apologize in four out of six of the
pressreleasesandCEOletter.
Benoit’s Image Repair Theory mentions five different strategies to regain a company’s or a
person’s image. Chipotle’s crisis was on-going nationwide in the United States. Due to the
magnitude of the crisis, we argue that Chipotle have taken the defeasibility strategy at the
beginning of the crisis (first press release, Appendix 5) because of the lack of knowledge as an
investigationwasunderwaysoChipotlewasnotabletopinpointspecificallywherethecrisisrooted.
Throughthecompany’spressreleases,many includedthestrategyofreducingoffensivenesswith
bolsteringasasub-strategywhereChipotlestressedthegoodtraitsaboutitself.Fromthebeginning,
Chipotle stressed its efforts to solve the crisis and stressed the importance of food safety to the
company,thenandpriortothecrisis.Furthermore,throughtheplanofsolvingthefoodsafetycrisis
and prevent it from happening again, Chipotle utilized the corrective action strategy where the
companylistedallthestepsithadtakenandallthestepsitwouldtaketopreventanythingsimilar
from happening again. Lastly, Chipotle made use of themortification strategy as the company
apologizedduringitscrisiscommunication.
ThetwocasesofDomino’sandChipotleareverydifferent.Domino’scrisistookplacebackin
2009,andChipotle’scrisisstartedinAugustof2015andisstillongoing.Inadditiontothedifferent
dates,Chipotle’scaseisveryextensivewithvariousoutbreakslocatedinmultiplelocationswhereas
inDomino’scase,onlyoneincidenthappenedonlyconnectedtoonespecificplace,NorthCarolina.
Page 72
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
73
Another important aspect in the two cases is theirdifferent crisis types/clusters.Webelieve
that Domino’s crisis belongswith the victim cluster with rumor as a sub-category and Chipotle’s
crisiswith the intentional/preventable clusterwith thesub-categorieshuman-errorproductharm
and organizational misdeed with injuries. According to Coombs (2007, 168), an organization is a
victim of the crisis with victim cluster and due to that there is weak attributions of crisis
responsibility,whichequalsmild reputation threat. It is theoppositewith intentional/preventable
cluster.Here,agivencompanyplacedpeopleatrisk,tookinappropriateactionsorviolatedlawsand
regulations(Coombs2007,168)–thisequalsstrongattributionsofcrisisresponsibilityandthereby
severereputationalthreat(Coombs2007,168).
5.2 SocialMediaStatementsfromChipotleandDomino’s
In this sectionof theanalysis,wewill analyze24ofChipotle’s socialmediapostsonboth
FacebookandTwitter.Wewillexamine fiveofDomino’sFacebookpostsand tweets fromParket
al.’sjournalwithsameapproach.Inaddition,wewillanalyzecommentsfromstakeholdersoneach
ofthecompanies’socialmediaplatforms.
5.2.1 ChipotleSocialMediaPostsandStakeholderComments
Since the firstoutbreakofE.Coli started inAugust2015,wewillbegin this sectionof the
analysiswithposts and tweets from thismonth.When theE.Coli outbreak first appeared in Simi
Valley, CA which we believe from there turned into a nation wide crisis as social media spread,
ChipotlepostedatweetonAugust21,2015stating“Chop,Chop,fresh”(Appendix15,1.)Thistweet
included a short video of cilantro being chopped and received 58 retweets and 213 likes. A
stakeholder belowposted “with da food poisoning.” (Appendix 15, 3). Chipotle responded to this
specific tweet saying “We take our customers’ health very seriously, please contact us at
chipotle/email-us -Rusty.” (Appendix 15, 3). Before this tweet was posted, Chipotle had not
acknowledgedon socialmedia theE.Coli outbreak that sickened243 customers.Webelieve that
Chipotle posted this tweet in order to remind its stakeholders of its efforts to constantly provide
freshfood,as“FoodwithIntegrity” isChipotle’smotto.ThiscouldalsobeseenasoneofCoombs’
postures,thebolsteringposturewiththesub-categoryofreminding.Wefindtheword‘fresh’used
inthetweettobeleadingstakeholdersonTwittertohaveaconversationregardingE.Coliandput
itsfreshnessintoquestion.AnotheraspectregardingChipotle’sresponseistheuseofincludingthe
socialmediamanager’snamewhenreplying.Thiscouldbealinguisticchoicetobuildarelationship
Page 73
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
74
andtoappearpersonal.Althoughsomeothercompaniesmightusethistacticaswell,wearguethat
Chipotlechosethisstrategydeliberatelytoappearapproachable.
Another tweetpostedon thisdaystated,“Cometome” (Appendix15,2)withapictureofa
chipandguacamole.Webelievethis tweetwasposted inefforts to intrigue its loyalcustomersto
return, regardless of the food safety crisis. This post received665 retweets and1,405 likes. Later
thatmonth,onAugust30,2015Chipotlepostedanothertweetstating“salsapartner”(Appendix15,
4)anditreceived162retweetsand523likes.Commentsregardingthispostincludedstakeholders
asking forChipotle tobringa location to theirarea (Appendix15,5).This leadsus tobelieve that
regardlessof theE.Colioutbreak,somestakeholdersstillare loyal tothebrandandwould liketo
see more of it as findings from the survey conducted for this thesis showed that 32 percent of
respondentswouldcontinuetoeatatChipotleregardlessofhavingafoodsafetycrisis(Appendix3).
AlsoinAugust28,2015,ChipotlepostedonitsFacebookpageashortvideowithsnapshotsof
summerscenerieswithaChipotleproductineachphoto,thepoststated,“Wishwecouldhitrepeat
onoursummer.Howwasyours?”(Appendix16,2).Bythispoint,thefirstoutbreakofNorovirushad
beguninSimiValley,California.Themajorityofthecommentsunderthispostmentionedsummer,
locationrequestsorpositiveremarksaboutChipotlee.g.,“Itwaswaytoohot”,“I<3#Chipotle”and
“Come toNewZealand!” (Appendix 16, 2). This post received772 likes and42 shares. It did not
receiveanynegativecomments,whichcouldbeduetothispostbeinguploadedatthebeginningof
theoutbreaks.
On September 22, 2015, Chipotle posted a tweet saying “If aliens invade Earth, we can
probablymakepeaceovertacos”(Appendix15,6).Thistweetreceived920retweetsand1,314likes.
One comment regarding this tweet stated, “I had a BURITTO yesterday and it was horrible !!!!”
(Appendix15,6).Chipotlerepliedbywriting“Weapologize.MayIsuggestyoucontactthemanager
sotheycanaddressthisandmakeamends?-Candice”(Appendix15,6).Onceagain,mentioningthe
sender's(theChipotlesocialmediamanager’s)namecouldmakethestakeholderfeelthattherewas
a relationship between him/her and the sender. Furthermore, since Chipotle took action by
respondingtothistweet,itcouldbeseenasarebuildingposturewithapologyasasub-categoryto
try to regain its image. We do not know if this comment was connected with the food safety
outbreaks,butwebelievethatChipotlemighthadbeenevenmoreawareofsuchcommentsdueto
thecrisis.Fromthis,webelievethatsinceTwitterisaconversationplatform,Chipotlehadchosento
useittoreachitsstakeholderstohaveaconversationwiththemregardingtheir likes,dislikesand
concernsabout thecompanyonTwitter. Inaddition, fromtheconductedsurvey (Appendix3),we
foundthatthat53percentofindividualswereinformedabouttheoutbreaksviasocialmedia,which
Page 74
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
75
makesusbelievethatChipotledidchosethecorrectplatformtocommunicatewithitsstakeholders
inordertoregainitsimage.
LateronOctober19,2015,whenthecrisishadbecomeanationwideconversationsurrounding
theE.Colioutbreak,Chipotlepostedatweetsaying“Hedidthemash”(Appendix15,7)withavideo
ofoneof itsemployeesmashingtheavocados for itsguacamoleproduct.This tweetreceived391
retweetsand909likes.Alsoonthisday,Chipotletweeted“Weknowwhatyouatelastsummer(cuz
wekeeptherecipes)”(Appendix15,8).Sincethiswasthefirstdaywherecaseshadbeenofficially
reported regarding Chipotle and E. Coli, we believe that the company chose this language for its
tweets to keep conversation and interest of its food products relevant or a lack of knowledge
regarding the outbreaks. In addition, the following tweets on Chipotle’s Twitter account for the
monthofOctoberstated,“Inthefutureyou’llbeabletoteleporttoburritos.Orhavethemteleport
you”(Appendix15,9)and“Buildingitupsoyoucantakeitdown”(Appendix15,9).Thesetweetsdid
notstartconversationinregardstothefoodsafetycrisis.
On Chipotle’s Facebook page on October 20, 2015, a day after the E. Coli outbreak was
believedtohadbegun,ChipotlepostedavideothatwaspreviouslypostedonitsTwitterpageaday
before,“Hedidthemash”(Appendix15,7),exceptthepoststated“GuacThisWay”(Appendix16,
3).Mostof thecommentswere focusedonthevideousingpositive language.Ontheotherhand,
onecommentstated,“Whendoyouaddthefoodborneillnesses?”(Appendix16,3).Thiscomment
received13likes,butwaspostedonDecember10,2015.Althoughthiswasanegativecomment,it
did not start a conversation between consumers on the Facebook post and Chipotle did not
acknowledge this post. At this point of time, we believe that Chipotle chose Benoit’s strategy of
evasionofresponsibilitywithdefeasibilityasasub-strategy,astherewasnotenoughinformationat
thetimetoestablishwhatwashappeningregardingtothecrisis.
On November 9, 2015, three days after the press release was published Chipotle’s Twitter
account posted “We’ve taken a number of steps to ensure our food is safe to eat in Oregon and
Washington. Read more: chipotle.com/update” (Appendix 15, 10). Comments to follow included
stakeholdersaskingaboutthelocationsclosetothem,“WhataboutDallas”(Appendix15,11),“are
youstillclosingdowneverywhere:(((“(Appendix15,11)and“Ijusthadabarbacoaburritotoday.I
hopei’msafe”(Appendix15,11).ChipotlerespondedbytellingthoseindividualsthatChipotlewas
safe, and that the company was still “going strong” (Appendix 15, 11). Again, the social media
managersincludedhisorhername,whichwebelievecouldbeChipotletryingtobuildarelationship
withitsstakeholders.FromChipotle’schoiceoflanguage,webelieveitcontinuedtouseTwitterasa
platformtocommunicatewithstakeholderstorebuilditsimage.
Page 75
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
76
AfterChipotleinformedstakeholdersthattheE.ColiwasresolvedinOregonandWashington,
Chipotle’sTwitterupdatesreturnedtousingthesamelanguagethatthestatementsusedbefore,for
examplea tweetpostedonNovember17,2015 stated, “It's rude to stare.Comeoverand sayhi”
(Appendix15,14)withapictureofoneofChipotle’sproducts.Thistweetreceived450retweetsand
1,444 likes.Stakeholdersshowedconcernandinterest intheE.Colioutbreaks.Thesetweetswere
not of negative concern regarding the E. Coli, both were requesting Chipotle to return to
Washington,“comebacktoseattle!:’(“ (Appendix15,15)and“REOPENINWASHINGTONANDI’M
THERE” (Appendix 15, 15). Chipotle took advantage of these tweets and made sure that its
stakeholderswere aware that Chipotlewas in fact open again inWashington by respondingwith
“We’re back already -Shane” (Appendix 15, 15) and “We’re open! -Shane” (Appendix 15, 15).We
believethattheE.ColioutbreakswereanonlineconversationonTwitterbetweenstakeholdersand
Chipotle’s socialmediamanagers and employees. Chipotle chose to acknowledge these reactions
insteadofignoringtheconversation,whichwebelievecouldbeanattemptfromthecompanytrying
to regain its image. Responding to individual tweets could be a form of managing the damage
control by acknowledging the conversation rather than not responding or saying ‘no comment’,
whichthenwouldbethedenialstrategy.Chipotledidnotrespondtoeverysinglepostorcomment,
e.g.“Whendoyouaddthe foodborne illnesses?” (Appendix16,3).Wedonotknowwhether this
wasadeliberatechoicetonotrespondorifChipotlejustoverlookedthiscomment.
On November 20, 2015, Chipotle released the press release “Chipotle Updates on E. Coli
Investigation” (secondpress release,Appendix6)alsoon thisdayChipotleposteda tweet stated,
“Thebestpartofalunchmeetingisthelunch”(Appendix15,16).Thistweetalsoincludedapicture
ofoneofChipotle’sfooditems.Thistweetreceived137retweetsand609likes.Commentsonthis
tweet did not acknowledge the picture or the tweet content, but focused on the outbreaks by
stating “Is it safe to eat at Chipotle again?” (Appendix 15, 17) and “no comment about the e.coli
outbreak?Chickens“(Appendix15,17).Chipotlerespondedtothesetweetsbysaying“Sureis.You
can readall about it at chipotle.com/updates. -Candice” (Appendix15,17) and “You can readour
press releasehere: ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.zhtml?... -Shane” (Appendix 15, 17). By including these
links for stakeholders it could lead them to discover more information regarding the crisis, we
believe Chipotle was taking the corrective action strategy, suggested by Benoit, to enable
stakeholderstoknowwhatthecompanywasdoingtotakecareofthecrisis.However,Chipotleonly
providedtheselinksandinformationwhenbeingquestionedabouttheE.Coli.
OnNovember25,2015,Chipotlepostedon itsFacebookpage“We’reclosedonthanksgiving
day.Absencemakestheheartgrowfonder.Seeyouonthe27th”(Appendix16,4).Betweenthelast
Facebook post and this one, Chipotle did notmention or post any information in regards to the
Page 76
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
77
ongoing food safety crisis,whichwebelieve createda lackof transparencyon its Facebookpage.
Most of the comments did not acknowledge the crisis. One stakeholder posted “Any black friday
specials? :)” (Appendix16,4),andanotherstakeholderrespondedwith“YesE.Coli”(Appendix16,
4),whichreceived34 likes.Webelievethe languageinthisresponsewashumorous,bycreatinga
jokeoutofthecrisis.Chipotledidnotacknowledgethecomment.
On December 4, 2015, Chipotle published the press release, “Chipotle commits to become
industryleaderinfoodsafety”(Appendix8).EarlieronDecember1,2015,itpostedatweetstating,
“WhendreamingofChipotle,you31%Swiminguacpool,13%Honeymoonwithtacos,56%Wakeup
hungry”(Appendix15,18).Thetweetreceived190retweetsand268likes.Commentsregardingthis
tweetremainedfocusedonstakeholderswantingtoeatChipotle,andstakeholderssharingthispost
with their friends. This could show that some stakeholders still had brand loyalty, as therewere
mainlypositivecommentsafterafour-monthongoingcrisis.
On December 2, 2015, Chipotle posted a picture of its food products on its Facebook page
saying“Youpickthemovie,butholdusifit’sscary”(Appendix16,5).Themajorityofthecomments
fromstakeholderswerepositiveremarksstating“MerryChristmas!”(Appendix16,5)and“Seeyou
nextweek!HappyHolidays!”(Appendix16,5).Onecommentstated,“Ihopeeveryonecontinuesto
seekshelterintheirdoomsdaybunkerswhileIkeepenjoyingtheshorterlines”(Appendix16,5).We
believethediscourseinthiscommentinsinuatedthatthisspecificcustomerwasenjoyingthatthere
was a crisis by saying that due to the outbreaks, he then received quicker service. This postwas
publishedonDecember24,2015,afterthesecondoutbreakofNorovirushitarestaurantinBoston.
Webelievethatthiswasnotanegativecomment,butmightshowthebrandloyaltythatpromoted
othercustomerstoreturntoChipotle’sstores,andwebelievethepersonbehindthepostwastrying
tobehumorous.
OnDecember10,2015,Chipotle releaseda letter“A letter fromChipotleFounderSteveElls”
(Appendix11).Chipotletweetedthis letteron itsTwitteraccountandstated in thetweetaquote
from Ells saying, “Nothing is more important to me than serving my guests food that is safe” -
ChipotlefounderSteveElls”(Appendix15,19).Thistweetreceived489retweetsand988likes.The
commentsfromstakeholdersonthistweetweremainlynegative.Onestakeholderpostedapicture
ofarawpieceofchickenstating“Isubmittedacomplaintonyourwebsitebutnoonefollowedup.
Doesthischicken lookundercooked?” (Appendix15,20).Chipotlerespondedbysaying,“Whendid
youcontactus?Itcantakeacoupleofdaysforustogetbackyoudependingonthevolume-Shane”
(Appendix15,21).WebelievethatinthismomentChipotlewasusingthecorrectiveactiontohave
that particular stakeholder know that Chipotlewas taking action in order to fix the problem. The
Twitterconversationcontinuedbetween the individualandChipotlewhereChipotle apologized to
Page 77
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
78
the individual fornotreceivingaresponse.Anothertweet fromastakeholderstated,“is it safeto
eatatchipotlenow?I’mhavingbadwithdrawls”(Appendix15,22).Chipotlerespondedbysaying“It
sureis.Comeonin-Shane”(Appendix15,22).Webelievethatthistweetshowedthebrandloyalty
thatsomeof itsstakeholdersmighthavehadtowardsChipotle.Anothertweetfromastakeholder
regardingtheletterfromEllssaid“allkiddingaside,thelasttwotimesIhadChipotleIimmediately
felt sick.” (Appendix 15, 22). Chipotle responded by saying “We take your health very seriously.
Please contact us at chipotle.com/email-us -Shane” (Appendix 15, 22). Byusing an apologetic and
sinceretone,webelievethatChipotlewasusingthebolsteringposturetoreminditsstakeholderof
theimportanceoffoodsafetytoChipotle.
BetweenDecember17andDecember28,2015,Chipotle’stweets,webelieve,remainedinan
advertisingposturebypostingpicturesandtweetstogainpositiveattentione.g.,“thistownain’tbig
enoughforthetwoofus.Igotustwoburritostogo”(Appendix15,23).AlthoughChipotle’sTwitter
accountavoidedpostingcontentregardingtheoutbreaksinthisperiod,someindividualsresponded
toChipotle’spostbysaying,“usuallyeathere2timesaweekbuthaven’tbeeninamonth.Waiting
for theall clear” (Appendix15,24).Chipotle respondedwith “youcan see the latestupdatehere;
chipotle.com/update -Shane.” (Appendix 15, 24). The Twitter conversation continued with the
stakeholderstating,“thanks.Justathoughtanybodythinkofdoing like$3burritosandbowlsasa
promo to get people to come back? Might work” (Appendix 15, 24). Chipotle responded with
“Thanksforthesuggestion.We’vegotsomethoughtswe’rekickingaround.Willaddthis. -Shane.”
(Appendix15,24).Byrespondingtothis individual'stweet,notonlycould itreassurestakeholders
thatChipotlewasbeingtransparentaboutthenegativeattention ithadreceived,but itcouldalso
giveatransparentplatformforstakeholderstocommunicatewithChipotle,whichcouldbeapartof
itsimagerepairapproach.
OnDecember24, 2015,Chipotlepostedon its Facebookpage, “Mostof our restaurantswill
closeearlyChristmasEveandalldayonChristmas.Confirmdetailswithyour local restaurant,and
we’llseeyouagainonthe26th.HappyHolidays!”(Appendix16,6).Thispostwasaccompaniedwith
aphotographofoneofChipotle’sfoodproductswithaChristmastreeinthebackground.Thispost
received 295 likes and 14 shares. The comments on this post ranged from showing brand loyalty
e.g.,“Isupportchipotleandwillremainaloyalcustomer.Thankyouforyourhardworkwithkeeping
food, real andworking towards better nonGMO, humane sourcing” (Appendix 16, 6) to negative
comments e.g., “Change the name at least to shitpolti” (Appendix 16, 6). Through the conducted
survey for this thesis, we found that 30 percent respondents were likely to return to Chipotle
regardless of the ongoing crisis (Appendix 3).One respondent from the survey said, “Locally they
closeddownallrestaurantswhentheoutbreakwasfirstdiscovered,Ifeelthattheydealtwithitina
Page 78
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
79
very professional way and did everything to cooperate with authorities to find the source of
contamination” (Appendix3). Inadditiontothis,acommentontheDecember24,2015postsaid,
“Chipotle,youhanginthere.You’llgetitfixed.Findthesaboteurs,eitherpurposefulorunknowing.
Change your employee health practices and foodpractices. I have faith in you.” (Appendix 16, 6).
From these comments, we believe that Chipotle’s crisis communication strategy was received
positivelybyamajorityofitsconsumersandstakeholdersinsupportofbrandloyalty.
OnJanuary15,2016,ChipotleannouncedonTwitter that itwouldbeclosingall locationson
February8,2016,to“discussrecentandfuturefoodsafetychanges”(Appendix15,30).Webelieve
thiswasChipotle’sapproachtoinformthepublicaboutthecorrectiveactionthecompanyhaddone
andwouldtakeinattempttobettertheundesirableactionsandtherebytrytoregainitsimage.By
February8,2016,Chipotlecontinuedinformingstakeholdersbygivingaliveupdateofthemeeting
thatithadhad.Chipotlestatedthisbysaying,“We’llbelive-tweetingournationalemployeemeeting
todaytodiscussrecentandfuturefoodsafetyandwe’llbeon#periscopeat12pmEST”(Appendix
15,41).OnFebruary8,2016,thetweetsthatChipotlepostedvariedfrom“FounderSteveEllskicks
offmeeting. Over 500,000 employees tuned in via satellite in 400+ viewing locations nationwide.
#ChipotleAllTeam”(Appendix15,41)to“StevethankstheCDCfortheireffortsandfordeclaringthe
E.Colioutbreakover lastweek”(Appendix15,42).Throughthistransparency,webelieveChipotle
statedthis information ineffort toupdate itsstakeholdersbyusingBenoit’scorrectiveactionand
Coombs’bolsteringposturewithremindingasasub-categorytotrytoregainitsimage.Whileusing
Benoit's and Coombs’ strategies, Chipotle also apologized on this day which is part of Coombs’
rebuildingposture.AlltweetsfromFebruary8,2016,canbefoundinAppendix15.
During themonths of January and February 2016, Chipotle did not publish a Facebook post
statingthatitslocationsnationwidewouldbeclosedonFebruary8,2016,foranall-teammeetingas
itdidonTwitterandonitsInvestorRelationpage.Instead,therewasapostinJanuarystating,“The
‘don’t talk tome, I’meating’ sweater” (Appendix16,7)withapictureofacustomer inasweater
with a Chipotle product. Furthermore, on February 5, 2016, a post stating, “Eat your way to a
touchdown.We’recatering:www.chipotle.com/catering”(Appendix16,8)wasposted.Thisposthad
a picture of a spread of Chipotle’s products prepared for a sports game. The comments from
stakeholdersonthesepostsweresimilartopreviouspostsastherewasmentionoftheE.Coli,e.g.
“we shouldget this just for theE-Coli” (Appendix 16, 8). Regardlessof that comment, therewere
morepositivecommentsthatuselanguagebyexpressingfeedbackandbrandloyaltye.g.,”Didyou
guys hear abou the millions of people that didn’t get sick from Chipotle?” (Appendix 16, 7) and
“CHIPOTLE….Istandbyyouguys!!!IamaLOYALCUSTOMER<3fromNYC”(Appendix16,7).
Page 79
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
80
5.2.2 Domino’sSocialMediaPostsandStakeholderComments
Prior to the twoDomino’semployeespublishing thevideo in2009onYouTube,Domino’s
wasnotactiveonsocialmediaplatforms.AnarticlebyAmy Jacques (2009), stated thatDomino’s
hadputtogetherasocialmediateampriortothecrisis,andthatthecompanywasplanningtogo
onlinejustoneweekaftertheYouTubevideowaspublishedbytheemployees(Jacques,2009).This
meansthatDomino’shadcreatedasocialmediateampriortothecrisis,andduetothat,weassume
thatthecompanywasalmostreadytogoonlineandhadsomeofitscommunicativestrategiesput
together, e.g. which social media platforms the company would be presented on, who and how
many employees would handle the communication and what and who those employees should
publish and reply to. Even though Domino’s had created this social media team, the company
probablydidnotexpectthissortofexposureandduetothevideopublishedonYouTube,Domino’s
hadtogoonlineoneweekbeforeithadplanned.
Domino’sfirstFacebookpostwasfromApril19,2009,whichwasaweekafterthevideowas
published on YouTube by one of the two employees from Domino’s. It received 39 likes and 12
comments(Appendix17,1.)Thepoststated,“Domino’sPizzadoesgreatthingsforyourcommunity”
(Appendix17,1.) followedbyaYouTube link.Whenweclickon the link,weare sent toYouTube
withavideothatisnolongeravailable.Wecannottellwhatthevideoisabout,butonthebasisof
thepostandthecommentsbelowtheposte.g.“quitwiththecounterpromotionthewaytodo it
would be to give free pizza not these fake ass ads” (Appendix 17, 1.) and “then apparently you
haven’teverbeeninKilleenTXwherethestoretheredonateshundredsofpizzastothesoldiersthere
orwhen I donated150pizzas to theunderprivaliged children in the innerHoustonarea. thereare
many stories like these, research” (Appendix 17, 1.).Webelieve it could be a video about all the
goodtraitsDomino’sthoughtithaddoneforthecommunityintheformofactsofkindnessand/or
offers,butwecannotconcludeanythingassomeofthecommentswererelatedtothecrisisstating
e.g.“lol,tryNareboundhuhdomino’s?”(Appendix17,1.)and“Imsorrytothecustomersthathave
hadachangeofheartdueto2ex-employeesthatwereVERYimature…ButIassureyouthatThose
twopeople did not care about their Jobs or the company…and I think the 2 of themneed to be
seeingsomeseriousjailtime”(Appendix17,1.).Thiscouldindicatethatthelinkedvideowasrelated
tothefoodviolationcrisis.Wecannotdeterminewhatthelinkedvideowasabout,sowewillonly
focusonthepostandcommentsexcludingwhatthevideomighthavebeenabout.
Initsfirstpost,webelievethatDomino’susedCoombs’bolsteringposturewithreminding
asasub-categoryinevidencetoBenoit’sreducingoffensivenesswiththesub-strategyofbolstering
asDomino’swas reminding its stakeholders that the companyhad done good for its community.
ThisbeingDomino’sfirstFacebookpostthatwecouldcollect,webelievethatthepostwasnotvery
Page 80
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
81
explanatory and it did not relate or state anything directly regarding the case with the two ex-
employees.Thecommentsofthepostvary,someofthecommentshavedonotdirectlyaddressthe
post e.g. “lol” (Appendix 17, 1.) and “there are no dominoes in suttonwv” (Appendix 17, 1.) The
othercommentswereeitherpositiveandsupportingDomino’se.g.“it’stoobadpeoplearesoquick
tojudgeandplaceblameontheentireDomino’ssystem,thiswasanisolatedincidentandtwostupid
peopledoingsomethingthatcausedsomuchharmtoagratefranchisee…”(Appendix17,1.),and
negativecomments includinge.g.“sorry ,butdominospepperonipassion (withonions) is theeast
foodoutthere..Myonlycomplaintisthattheydon’ttellyouitsbuyonegetonefreetillyoupickit
up…DISGRACEFULx”(Appendix17,1.).
Thesecondpostwehaveselected is fromApril28,2009.TheFacebookpostreceived136
likes,32commentsand11peoplesharedthepostontheirownFacebookpages(Appendix17,2.).
Thispoststated,“NowwhenyouorderfromDomino’s,youcantrackyourpizzaonFacebook.Justhit
the “Share on Facebook” button fromPizza Tracker” including a picture ofwhat the pizza tracker
lookedlike(Appendix17,2.).ThiscouldbeseenassomethingnewDomino’swastryingtopromote.
ThepizzatrackerwasconnectedtoFacebook,whichalsocouldbeawayforDomino’stoshowthat
the companywas activeon Facebook. The launchof thepizza tracker on Facebook could alsobe
seenasawayforDomino’stocreateorregainconfidenceinitsbrandasthetrackergavepeoplethe
opportunity to track their pizzas step-by-step. This could indicate that Domino’s used Benoit’s
corrective action strategy – the company was trying to do things right and try to prevent a
recurrenceof theevent.Weargue that this cannotprevent a similar case fromhappening, but it
couldmakethecustomersandstakeholdersfeelmoreconfidentwhenreturningtoDomino’s.
When lookingat thecomments fromstakeholders, theywereamixofcomments thatdid
not relate to the post made by Domino’s e.g. “I’m the first comment!lol” (Appendix 17, 2.) and
comments thatusedpositive language regarding thenewpizza tracker connectedwith Facebook,
e.g. “I loooove this feature ;)” (Appendix 17, 2.). Therewas one comment that stood out stating,
“tomas ur free to decide wat u want but just in case u didn’t see this its about that incident”
(Appendix17,2.)followedbyalinktoaYouTubevideo.Itisnotpossibletogainaccesstothevideo
anymore,butwecanonlyassumethatthelinksomehowwasrelatedtothefoodviolationvideoas
thepersonreferredtoitas“thatincident”.Domino’shadnothadanyotherincidentsatthattime.
This could be an example of eWoM. The post Domino’s made about the pizza tracker was not
connected to the crisis in an obvious way, but still one stakeholder chose to comment on the
incident.
The thirdpostonFacebookwehavechosen touse for thisanalysiswaspostedon July6,
2009. It stated, “Hey fans, just an FYI we’ve changed our Twitter ID and will now be going by
Page 81
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
82
@dominos from now on. If you’re not following yet, give us a look, fun times to be had for all!”
(Appendix 17, 3.) followedby a link to the company’s newTwitter account. Thepost received71
likesand22comments(Appendix17,3.).Domino’sstartedthepostbyreferringtothestakeholders
as“fans”whichcouldbeinterpretedthatDomino’smightonlybetargetingthisgroupofpeople.We
arguethatthis isawordwheresomepeoplemight feelexcludedastheymightnot feelas if they
were“fans”.”Fan”isnotanegativeword,butDomino’scouldhaveusedamoreneutralworde.g.
customer.Fromthesurveyconductedforthisthesis,wefoundthatthemajorityoftherespondents
did not use language that could be interpreted as them being fans, e.g. when we asked the
respondentswhy theyeatatDomino’s, some replied,“Friendsorder it” (Appendix3),“I’mdrunk”
(Appendix 3) and “If there are no other option” (Appendix 3). Also, only one percent of survey
respondentseatthereseveraltimesaweekandeightpercentonceamonth(Appendix3).
Wethinkthispostusedinformativelanguage,andeventhoughweknowwhattheTwitter
account’snamewasbefore(@dpzinfo)andthattheTwitteraccountwasmadespecificallytotake
careofthecrisiscommunicationonline,Domino’smadesurenottomentiontheaccount’sprevious
nameandnottomentionanythingaboutthecrisis.Webelievethiswas intentionalandDomino’s
didnotwanttoremindpeopleofthecrisis.Noneofthecommentswererelatedtothecrisis,instead
it was amix of people that were positive about Domino’s, e.g. “Domino’s is good. Twitter sucks
though” (Appendix17,3.),peoplewhowerenegativeaboutDomino’s,e.g.“IHATEPIZZAASLAST
TIMEIHADDOMINOSWASVERYCOLDPIZZAANDCHEESEJUSTWASLIKERUBBER…”(Appendix17,
3.)andcomments thatdidnothaveanything todowith theposte.g., “parmesancheese is really
cool….Busit’ssmellisolnybad……butitstastegreat!!!”(Appendix17,3.).
ThefourthpostwehaveselectedfromDomino’sFacebookpagestated,“Domino’srecently
announcedwewere#1inmartketshareforonlineordering,beatingbothPizzaHutandPapaJohns.
Sowedecidedtoaskourcustomerswhattheythoughtmadeouronlineorderingsogreat.Wantto
findoutwhattheyhadtosay?Hitthe‘25”(Appendix17,4.).ThiswaspostedonJuly23,2009and
thepostreceived70likesand26comments(Appendix17,4.).WebelieveDomino’shadpostedthis
becausethecompanywantedtobeperceivedasarespectedcompanyanditmayhavefeltthatit
still had to regain its image. This could be seen as Benoit’s reducing offensiveness with the sub-
strategyofbolsteringsimilartoCoombs’bolsteringposturewithremindingasasub-category.We
believe thatDomino’swas reminding its stakeholdersof thecompany’s strongposition.Weargue
thatthelinguisticselectioninthispostwasdifferentfromtheotherposts.Ifwecomparethistopost
number three (Appendix 17, 3.), there was a change in the way Domino’s referred to its
stakeholders.Inpostnumberthreeitstated,“Ifyou’renotfollowingyet…”(Appendix17,3.),here
Domino’sreferredtoitsstakeholderswiththeuseof“you”whereasinpostnumberfour,Domino’s
Page 82
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
83
used“our”and“they”when referring to its stakeholders.The first sentencewasalsoconstructed
differently, it stated “Domino’s recently announced” and then “wewere” (Appendix 17, 4.) – we
argue that it sounds like “Domino’s” and “we” were two different categories and this could be
contradictory compared to theother posts and it could alsobe interpreted as thepost hadbeen
writtenbysomeonewhowasnotusedtowritingpostsonDomino’sFacebook. It isarguedthata
companyshouldhave“ateamofemployeesthatisresponsibleformanagingthefirm’ssocialmedia
accounts” (Horn et al. 2015, 204). We argue that it seemed like Domino’s did not had that. A
stakeholderhadalsonoticedthisbystating,“WhoareWE!”(Appendix17,4.).Whichtousindicates
thatthisindividualwasconfusedaboutthepost’ssender.Anotherstakeholderstated,“Theystarted
outasthecompanyinthedark,butnowIreallylikethem!☺”(Appendix17,4.)–wecannotbe100
percent sureofwhat the stakeholdermeant by this, butwe assume that hewas referring to the
crisis. This couldprove thatDomino’s crisis communication strategieswith thebolstering posture
andreducingoffensivenesshadhelpedregainitsimage.Inoneofthecommentscollected,wecan
see that for the first time Domino’s interacted with its stakeholders. The company answered a
stakeholderby commenting, “HeyRalph, thedatawasprovidedbyNPDGroup’sCrest research,a
thirdparty” (Appendix17,4.).Byengagingwiththisstakeholder,Domino’scouldbeattemptingto
regain its image. Previously, Domino’s had not engaged with any stakeholders on Facebook.We
believethatDomino’srespondedtothisstakeholderbecausehisquestionmighthavebeenspecific
andneededananswer.
Thefinalpost,postnumberfive,waspostedDecember30,2009andreceived339likesand
134comments.Thepoststated,“Ifyouhaven’tseenityet,checkoutthefullPizzaTurnaroundvideo
righthereonFacebook!” (Appendix17,5.),andwasfollowedbyavideowiththetext,“Gobehind
thescenesofDomino’snewpizzawiththerealpeoplewhomadeithappen.Wanttoknowwhywe
madeanewpizza?Takealook.”(Appendix17,5.).Here,weseethesamepatternasthecomments
in the previous posts; comments from people who were positive regarding Domino’s e.g.
“DOMINO’S RULES!!!!” (Appendix 17, 5.), comments from people who were negative about
Domino’se.g.“IjusthadDomino’stodayandafewweeksago….theoneafewweeksagohadgaric
andthistime ittasted liketheoldpizza…sohonestly Igaveupand imbacktomakingmyown☺”
(Appendix17,5.)andcommentsthatwerenotrelatedtotheposte.g.“hyghj”(Appendix17,5.)and
“iwantfreepizza”(Appendix17,5.).Eventhough,noneofthecommentswererelatedtothecrisis,
westill seethepostasastrategy forDomino’s tobolster itselfbyreminding itsstakeholders that
Domino’sdidlistentothemandactedaccordingtothat.
None ofDomino’s Facebook posts in 2009 forwardly acknowledged the crisis.Webelieve
thisisadeliberateactbecauseoftheconsistency.WebelievethiswasbecauseDomino’schoseto
Page 83
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
84
start its Facebookpagewithpositiveposts.Goingover the selectedposts and lookingat the first
post inApril19,2009and the lastone inDecember30,2009,wenoticedachange in theactivity
fromthecompany’sstakeholders;postnumberonereceived39likesand12commentsandthelast
post received339 likesand134comments.This couldbebecauseof several reasons. It couldbe
becauseFacebook in2009wasverynew,andDomino’s just created theaccountprior to the first
post and in thisway there couldbe a lackof people following andwho likedDomino’s Facebook
page. Itcouldalsobeduetothecontentwherepeoplemighthavebeenmoreengaged incertain
topics.
Asstatedabove,someofthecommentsinthevariouspostswerenegativeagainstDomino’s
andexpressedanger.Thesecommentscouldpotentiallyhaveledtoanonlinefirestorm,especially
becauseDomino’s did not interactwith its stakeholders in the selected comments except for the
oneexampleinAppendix17,4.Webelievethatthereasonforthecommentsnotevolvingintoan
online firestorm could be because Domino’s Facebook account had just been created and the
attentionsurroundingFacebookforcompanieswasnotasestablishedasitistoday.
IfwelookatTwitter,theactivityfromstakeholdersrelatedtoDomino’swasdifferentfrom
theFacebookactivity.AccordingtoParketal.’scasestudy“Twitterwasoneofthekeyplaceswhere
discussions took place” (Park et al. 2012, 282) and based on the authors’ estimation, “more than
15,000Twitteruserspostedamessageabout theevent” (Parketal.2012,282)wereposted.This
createda total of 20,773 tweets,whichwasextracted fromApril 13 toApril 20, 2009 (Parket al.
2012,283).AnotherreasonforthelargeramountofactivityonTwittercouldbethatDomino’sused
itsTwitteraccounttosharealinktothecompany’sCEO’sofficialstatementonYouTube.Thetable
belowshows“thenumberofusers,tweets,mentions,re-tweets(RTs),andtweetswithURLsonthe
Domino’scase”(Parketal.2012,283).
(Parketal.2012,284)
Page 84
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
85
The green columns show howmany tweetswere postedwith Domino’s as a topic in the
monthofAprilin2009.April14,2009,therewasalargeincreaseinthenumberoftweets.Weargue
that this is due to the videoby the twoemployees beingpublishedon YouTube.During thenext
threedays,therewasachangefrommainlypositivetweetstonegativetweets,butfromApril16,
2009, itchangedagainandthetweetsremainedmainlypositivefortherestoftheperiod.Onthe
basis of this, it could be argued that Domino’s crisis communication strategies and its video on
YouTubehadworked. Furthermore, from this tablewecanassume that thecrisis subsided rather
quickly–theamountoftweetspeakedonApril16,2009andalreadythedayafter,theamountof
tweetsdecreasedaround50percent.However,weargue thateventhoughtheamountof tweets
quicklydecreasedagain,thereweremoretweetspostcrisisthanpriorcrisis.
According to the journal’s case study, 217 of the relevant tweets were facts. Of
these,57(16.7%)weresentduringthefirstpeakand160(39.9%)duringthesecondpeak(Parketal.
2012,288).Wearguethatitmightnotbethefactsthatstartthemostconversationsastheysimply
statelinksandcouldincludealittleinformation.Theothertypeisopinions–thesetweetshadeither
positiveornegativesentiments(Parketal.2012,288).Accordingtothecasestudy,only2(0.6%)of
thecollectedtweetswerepositiveduringthefirstpeakwhile283(82.8%)werenegative.Thesame
tendencywasseenduringthesecondpeakwith22(5.5%)positivetweetsand219(54,6%)negative
(Parketal.2012,288).
The1stpeak The2ndpeak
Facts 57(16.7%) 160(39.9%)
Positiveopinions 2(0.6%) 22(5.5%)
Negative 283(82.8%) 219(54.6%)
Total 342(100%) 401(100%)
We believe that due to the nature of the event, themajority were negative opinionated
tweets.Thetableaboveshowsadecreaseinnegativetweetsfromthefirstpeaktothesecondpeak,
andanincreaseinpositivetweetsduringthesameperiod.Wefindthisveryinterestingasthiscould
indicatethatDomino’scrisiscommunication,oratleastapartofit,hadworked.AccordingtoPark
etal.(2012),companiesusingcrisiscommunicationdonotexpecttoreceivepraiseortobeviewed
positively, “rather, they expect the public’s negative sentiment to calm down and become more
rational becauseof theapology” (Park et al. 2012, 288). Thenumbers in the table above confirm
this.Ifwelookfurtheratthenumbers,weseethattherehasalsobeenanincreaseintheamountof
(Parketal.2012,288)
Page 85
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
86
tweetswith links (facts) – from57 (16.7%) to 160 (39.9%). This could also support thatDomino’s
crisis communication strategies hadworked asmore factswere shared. Furthermore, therewere
slightlymorepositivetweetsthatwerepostedandthenegativetweetshaddeclinedfromthefirst
peaktothesecondpeak.
Parketal. (2012) looked further into theopinion tweetsand found that therewere three
typesofopinionsthatcouldhaveimpactedDomino’ssales;futureintent,persuasionandperception
(Park et al. 2012, 288). Tweets that indicated stakeholders thatwouldnot eat atDomino’s in the
future(futureintent)couldbeatweetsuchas,“NomoreDomino’satmyhouse”(Parketal.2012,
288).Wearguethat itsoundslikethepersonhadeatenDomino’sbeforeduetothechoiceofthe
words “nomore” and because of the food violations, which resulted in the person claiming that
he/she would not eat Domino’s again. The second type of negative purchase intent tweets was
whenapersonrecommendedotherstonoteatDomino’s,e.g.“Ifyoudidn’thaveareasontonoteat
Domino’spizzahttp://tinyurl.com/cd62h3” (Parketal.2012,288).Webelieve that thispersondid
notlikeDomino’spriortothecrisisbecauseofthewords“Ifyoudidn’t”asthe“if”,tous,indicates
that thepersonwasgivinga reason forothers tonoteatatDomino’s.The last type isperception
wherepeopleconfirmtheirpastnegativepurchase,e.g.“@TheDLCDuetotheirdisgustingpizza, I
alsohaven’teatenatDomino’spizzainabout20years.Thanksforconfirmingmydecision!”(Parket
al.2012,288).Webelievethepeoplewhopostedthesetweetswerealreadypeoplewhodidnoteat
at Domino’s, so one could argue that this would not harm Domino’s reputation. However, we
believe that all news travels fast, especially on socialmedia, through the process of eWoM. This
couldpotentiallyinformapersonwholikedDomino’spriortothecrisis,buttheperson’sperception
couldchangeifhe/shereadanegativetweet.Thiscouldalsobeseenasanonlinefirestormifthe
conversationhadbeeninitiatedfurther.
AccordingtoParketal.’stableonpage88(fromParketal.2012,284), itwouldseemlike
Domino’scrisiscommunicationonTwitterwassuccessful,buttherewerestillsomepeoplewhodid
not like theofficial statementonYouTube.A total of 71 tweets talkedabout the statement from
Domino’sPresident;34withnegativesentiments,tenwithpositivesentimentsand27tweetswere
morefactualthanopinionated(Parketal.2012,288).Thesenumbersshowusthatnegativetweets
were posted more often than positive ones. One of the negative tweets stated, “Very insincere
responsefromDomino’s-http://ow.ly/31mF.ComparetoJetBlue’sverysincereresponse2yrsago-
http://ow.ly/31mV” (Park et al. 2012, 288) and a positive one stated, “via @hollisthomases
http://bit.ly/2lZr8m kudos to Dominos for taking swift action via social media in response to the
nasty employee videos.” (Parket al. 2012, 288).Bothof these tweets could start eWoMbetween
Twitterusers,andwearguethatDomino’swouldpreferthepositivemediacoverage.However,we
Page 86
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
87
believe thatbadnews travels faster, thenumbers statedabovealso support this claim.However,
Parketal.arguethatwhen“peopleinteractwithothersinsocialmedia,theysharetheirfeelingsand
thisactcouldreducethenegativesentiments”(2012,289)–thiscouldalsoexplainwhythenegative
opinions decreased during the period. Even though the numbers above showed that there were
more negative tweets about the statement from the President of Domino’s than positive, the
statementcausedasignificantdecreaseinthenegativetweetsingeneral(seep.89).
Looking at the numbers from the conducted survey for this thesis, 12 percent of the
respondentsrememberDomino’scrisis in2009(Appendix3).However,accordingtoParketal.,“a
totalof16,553,169or30%ofallTwitteruserswereexposedtothenewsduringaneight-dayperiod
(April 13th-20th, 2009)” (Park et al. 2012, 284). This argues that a large amount of people were
informedaboutthecrisisatthatpointin2009,whichcouldbeconflictingwiththenumberfromthe
survey.Webelievethatitcouldbeduetothephrasingofthequestionbeing;“Didyouhearabout
Domino’semployeehealthviolations in2009?” (Appendix3). Somepeoplemightnot remembera
singlecrisiseventthat issevenyearsoldbyonlymentioningthenameof thecompany.Wecould
have asked the question differently by e.g. describing the crisis very shortly, which might have
sparked the respondents’ memories, but we refrained from that as we were very careful not to
constructleadingquestions.Lookingback,webelievethatwecouldhavebeenmorespecificwhen
askingaboutDomino’swithoutleadingpeopletorespondinacertainwaybyaskinge.g.,“Didyou
hearaboutDomino’shealthviolationswithtwoemployeesthatmadeaprankvideoin2009?”.We
arguethatthiswouldmakethequestionmorespecific,whichcouldhavehelpedsomerespondents
to remember the crisis. On the other hand, this could show that Domino’s crisis communication
strategiesweresuccessfulsince88percentofthesurveyrespondentscouldnotrememberthecrisis
(Appendix3).
ItwasimpossibleforustofindanyofDomino’sTwitterpostsonthecompany’sownTwitter
accountregardingthecrisis,butweknowthatitusedTwittertocommunicateandspreaditsvideo
statement on YouTube (Park et al. 2012, 283). We argue that Domino’s has used Facebook and
Twitter differently. The company has not used its Facebook account to communicate openly and
directly about the crisis, instead Domino’s chose to use its account to publish new initiatives.
Furthermore, we cannot know what Domino’s actually tweeted on Twitter, but we know the
companyaddressedthecrisisonthissocialmediaplatform.
5.2.3 SummaryofChipotleandDomino’sSocialMediaUsage
Whenanalyzingthecommentsoneachcompany’sFacebookandTwitteraccounts,thereare
bothsimilaritiesanddifferences.Onbothplatforms,foreachcompany,wefoundstakeholdersthat
Page 87
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
88
hadnegativeremarksandpositiveremarks.However,wearguethatthereismorecommunication
on Twitter as this platform enables users to communicatewith each other through hashtags and
retweets.Facebookenablescommunicationaswell,butwearguethatTwitterisaplacetoexpress
one’s feelings and thoughts and while sharing it with others. Because of the potential spread of
stakeholderopinionsandtheendlessamountofcontentonsocialmediaplatforms,webelievethat
both companies did not necessarily endure anonline firestorm via socialmedia, but socialmedia
informedothersocialmediausersofeachcrisisthrougheWoM.
Specifically, Chipotle remained in a rebuilding posture while communicating with
stakeholders on social media. The company constantly made each tweet response personal by
addingthesocialmediamanager’sname.Webelievethiswastoremindstakeholdersthattherewas
apersonbehindthetweetinordertobuildarelationshipandthatthepersontookhisorhertimeto
answertheuser.Also,Chipotlewasveryconsistentinselectingpositivelanguageonitssocialmedia
platforms,andevenwhenrespondingtoastakeholder’snegativecomment,itremainedpositive.On
Chipotle’s Facebook page therewere no specific posts regarding E. Coli or Norovirus food safety
outbreaks. Under Chipotle’s Facebook posts, which mostly were shared on Twitter as well,
stakeholders’ comments ranged from positive to negative around the time of the different
outbreaks.
When Domino’s used socialmedia during its crisis, the company had just jumped on the
social media trend for companies in 2009. This could be because of the year that its crisis was
occurring in versus Chipotle’s crisis taking place in 2015. Social media has only expanded and
changedsince2009,andwearguethatsocialmedianowhasbecomeverycommontostakeholders
and therefore companies should be aware and monitor what is happening on social media.
Domino’s also made a specific Twitter account (@dpzinfo) during the crisis, since then the
company’s account has change to @dominos. On the other hand, Chipotle used its company’s
accountthatwasalreadyestablishedtocommunicatewithstakeholdersaboutthecrisis.Again,this
couldbebecauseofthedevelopmentalpurposeofTwitterbetween2009-2016.Thisalsoprovided
Chipotlewithagreaterreachofpeople,whichcouldbehelpfulwhentryingtorepairone’simage.
Inaddition,Domino’sstartedusingFacebookaroundthesametimeasthecrisisin2009.We
believethiscouldhavebeenbecauseitwasanewmarketingtacticforcompanies,oritcouldhave
beeninattempttobolster itsreputationpriortothecrisis,eventhoughDomino’shadplannedto
start anaccountpre crisis (Jacques,2009).However,bothChipotleandDomino’sdidnot address
the crisis on Facebook,whereas both companies used Twitter to communicatewith stakeholders
about its crises. Although both companies did not specifically address its individual crises on its
Facebookpages,somestakeholderscommentedonthedifferentpostsmentioningthecrises.
Page 88
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
89
The comments on Domino’s Facebook posts were not as relevant as the comments on
Twitterpertainingtothecrisis.Chipotle,ontheotherhand,hadmanyrelevantcommentsregarding
thecrisisonitsFacebookpage.Someofthestakeholders’commentsonChipotle’stweetswerealso
relevant.Regardless,wearguethatpeoplewillnottweetorwriteacommentunlesstheyhavesome
sort of interest or perspective on the topic to actively express themselves. Also, many of the
commentsonbothChipotle’sTwitterorFacebookdiscussedthebrandandsomeofthemportrayed
brandloyalty.
Due to the latter, we believe stakeholders’ loyalty was shown by some through their
linguisticselectiononbothChipotle’sFacebookpageandTwitteraccountviacomments.Thismay
bedue toChipotle’smotto in attempt to provide “Foodwith Integrity”where stakeholders could
have developed their initial loyalty to the brand due to its motto, specifically involving food
reliability.ResponsesfromthesurveyconductedforthisthesisstatedthatindividualseatatChipotle
because, “they source non GMO and hormone free meat” (Appendix 3), “because they use local
produce” (Appendix 3) and “it is a healthier fast food option.” (Appendix 3). In comparison,
individualswhorespondedtothesurveysaidthattheyeatatDomino’sbecause“roommatesorder
it” (Appendix 3), “I’mdrunk,” (Appendix 3) and “close to home” (Appendix 3). From the language
chosen,webelievethatthe loyaltyofChipotlestakeholders’ isbuilton itsmottotoprovide“Food
withIntegrity”versusDomino’sstakeholdersmayseeitasjustanotherpizzafastfoodchainwithno
purposetoservequalityfood.WearguethatChipotleandDomino’sbothusedsocialmediaasatool
toregainitsimagebutindifferentwaysasthecrisesandtimesweredifferent.
5.3 MediaCoverageofChipotleandDomino’s In this part of the analysis, we will look at how the media portrayed both Chipotle and
Domino’s.Inordertodoso,wewillanalyzefourdifferentnewsarticlesandrelatedcommentsfrom
stakeholdersregardingChipotle’scrisis.ForDomino’scrisis,wewillanalyzetwodifferentvideoson
YouTubethatshowedtwodifferentnewssegmentsregardingDomino’scrisisin2009–wewillalso
analyzerelatedcommentstothevideos.
Page 89
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
90
5.3.1 NewsArticlesregardingChipotle Firstarticle,NBCSouthernCalifornia-September4,2015:
“SoCalChipotleLinkedtoNorovirusOutbreakAffectingNearly100People”
This article was published on September 4, 2015 by the NBC’s Southern California news
before Chipotle published any press releases regarding the crisis. To summarize this article, it
discussedthefirstcaseofNorovirusattheSimiValleylocationwhere,“80restaurantcustomersand
18 restaurant employees reported symptoms of a gastrointestinal illness after eating at the
restaurant.” (Appendix 18, Lines 10-11). As the article continued, it mentioned how Chipotle
“voluntarily” closed its restaurant and threw out the rest of the food on site. Jessica Perez, the
journalistofthisarticle,includedaquotefromtheVenturaCountyPublicHealthOfficerstatingthat,
“Norovirus is themostcommoncauseofacutegastroenteritis in theUnitedStates.” (Appendix18,
Line 25). The article ended with, “there have been no further reports of illness since the initial
reports,accordingtohealthofficials.”(Appendix18,Line28).Endingthearticlewiththisstatement
couldgivecomforttostakeholderswhoareconcernedwiththeirhealthtoensurethatthiscasehad
thepotentialtonotbeanongoingcrisis.
Thecommentsonthisarticlebeganwithastakeholdercommenting,“Notthislocationbut
the one in Lakewood, Ca. Every time I go their the counter is dirty. They never clean orwipe the
excessfoodleftbehindafterpreparingacustomerfood.Ifindthisannoyingandlazy”(Appendix22,
1).Wefindthiscommenttobeaggravated,butnotaggressive.Anotherstakeholdercommentedby
reminding individuals that, “thevirus is transmittedby fecally [fecal]contaminated foodorwater”
(Appendix22,1).Thiscommentcouldhavebeenpostedinresponsetothearticlesincethearticle
included phrases such as “seven of out of 18 specimen samples tested positive for Norovirus”
(Appendix18,Lines15-16),“therestaurant…threwoutallremainingfoodproductsandsenthomea
number of affected employees,” (Appendix 18, Lines 17-18) and “a person can contractNorovirus
fromcontaminatedfoodorwater,bytouchingcontaminatedsurfacesandthroughaffectedpeople”
(Appendix 18, Lines 26-27). We believe that this stakeholder felt the need to relay the most
important aspect of theNorovirus andwhere it actually originated. In response to this comment,
another individual posted her opinion, stating that Norovirus occurs, “way too often in So Cal.”
(Appendix 22, 1). This stakeholder seemed to be shifting the blame away from Chipotle to the
SouthernCaliforniaasshedidnotmentionChipotletobeatthecenteroftheblame.
Thecommentsonlinearemost likelynotfilteredthrough; individualsonlinehavetheright
toposttheirownopinions.Onestakeholderposted,“Chipotleisfat-packedgarbage.Justlookatthe
fatmoronswhoeatthere.EvenMcDonalds’ishealthier”(Appendix22,1).Fromthewordchoiceof
Page 90
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
91
“fat packed garbage” and “fat morons”, we believe that the person had established a previous
opinionaboutChipotleandwould like to further share thisnegativeopinion regarding thebrand.
Thisstatementcouldhavepossiblycreatedanegativeonlineconversationthatcouldhaveresulted
inanonlinefirestormaboutChipotle,butinsteadanindividualrespondedtothecommentnoting,
“‘Fat-packed garbage”, ‘McDonalds is healthier’ 1) Fat is not bad for you 2) McDonalds is not
healthier, nice try butno cigar…..” (Appendix 22,1). From the languageused in this comment,we
believe that it is a defense against the previous comment.We argue that this individual did not
defendChipotle,but thepersonwantedtomakesure thatothersdidnotbelieve thatMcDonalds
washealthier.Thisrebuttalreceivedthreelikes.Onelastcommentpostedonthisarticlesimplysaid
“Yuck”(Appendix22,1).Althoughwebelievethatthisstakeholderwasdisgustedbytheoutbreak,
he/shedidnotcontinuesharinghis/heropinionbyexplaininghis/hermeaningof“Yuck”.
SecondArticle,OregonLive,October31,2015:
“E.Colisickensatleast22peoplewhoateatChipotleinOregonandWashington”
This articlewasoriginally postedonOctober 31, 2015 and thenupdatedonNovember 2,
2015onOregonLive’swebsite (Appendix19).Thearticlebeganby repeatingwhathealthofficials
stated earlier where “22 people have been sickened with E. Coli bacteria linked to six Chipotle
Mexican Grill restaurants” (Appendix 19, Lines 4-5). This statement continued by stating that
individualshadbeensenttothehospital.Thiscouldleadreaderstointerprettheincidentasserious.
Inaddition, thisarticle includedaquote fromtheOregonHealthAuthority,whichwebelievealso
leadreaderstointerpretascertaintyastheinformationwasrelayedfromauthorities(Appendix19,
Lines17-19).
Readersmightinterpretdoubtfromthisarticleasitnoted,“Thenumberofaffectedpeople
‘is more likely more than identified’ because no everyone seeks medical help after becoming ill”
(Appendix19,Lines17-19).ThearticlealsostatedthatChipotlepostedanoteonthedoorsatthe
Oregonlocationwhenitwasclosedduetosupplychainissuesandthatemployeeswereseeninside
working(Note:thisisnottheBRBnotereferredtoonp.64).Whenendingthearticle,thejournalist
ensured that readerswere awareof the symptomsof E. Coli and gave advice to visit theOregon
HealthAuthorities’website if therewasconcernregarding food-borne illnesses.Themain focus in
thisarticlewasnotonChipotleasacompany,butthecontentwasfocusedonE.Coli.
Duetothelatter,webelievethatthecommentsonthisnewsarticleweremorefocusedon
E.ColiandNorovirusasatopic,thanfocusedonChipotle.Forexample,“mmmm,mmmm,mmmm
lovethoseecoliburritos!”(Appendix22,2),“8ofusgotnorovirusatalocalPizzaRestaurant.County
Page 91
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
92
saiditprobablycamefromthemen’sbathroomofthesaladbar.Theplacewascrowdedwithalotof
people.Ithadsimilarsymptomstoecoliandlasted4-5days,horrible!!”(Appendix22,2)and“There
arelong-termeffectsofhavingseriousfoodborneillness..”(Appendix22,2).Onestakeholderopted
tocommentbyshiftingtheblamefromChipotletofoodsafetyasalargerissuebystating,
“thiscanhappentoanyfoodserviceoperatoratanytimewiththelaborforceasitistoday.
Dinningoutisan‘atrisk’activitytoday.Nohealthinspectororanyamountofwashingthe
handswillguaranteetheguestofanyfoodrisk.FoodChainsuppliesaresometimesaffected
so there aremultitude of reasons this can happen.Honestly, I see better foodhandling in
local and corporate chains than single independents. Chains have strict policies that are
enforcedbecausetheyhaveoretoloseiftheyhaveanoutbreakofanykind.Eatoutatyour
ownrisk.”(Appendix22,2)
Eventhough,NorovirusandE.Coliwerethemainfocus,thearticlementionedChipotleas
being the center of the incident multiple times e.g., “Chipotle managers told state officials”
(Appendix19,Line28),“onSaturday,theChipotleat…”(Appendix19,Line33)and“E.Colibacteria
linked to six Chipotle Mexican Grill..” (Appendix 19, Lines 4-5). Other stakeholders continued to
commentfoodsafetyasatopicbystatinge.g.,“thisistheproblemwith‘singlesource’chains,they
can spread contaminated food far and wide. This also demonstrates that the problem didn’t
originate at the individual restaurants, so they should be closing all outlets serviced by the same
source” (Appendix 22, 2). We believe this could be because these individuals seemed to have
participated in food safety conversations before, whether it was watching information on TV,
readinganarticleor knowing someonewhowasaffectedbya foodborne illnessatanother food
chain,duetothelengthandknowledgethattheysharedwhilecommentingonthisparticulararticle.
Overall, we believe this article had the potential to start an online firestorm directed at
Chipotle but individualswho responded to the article refrained and focused on the topic of food
safetyasawhole.
Thirdarticle,NBC-December42015:
“ChipotleVowstoTightenFoodSafetyStandardsinwakeofE.ColiCases”
Written by the associated press of NBC, this articlewas published on December 4, 2015,
threedaysafterthepressreleasecalled“Chipotlecommitstobecomeindustryleaderinfoodsafety”
(Fourth press release, Appendix 8) was published. This article talked about what Chipotle was
promising to its stakeholders by using present and future tense “Chipotle says it is tightening”
Page 92
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
93
(Appendix 20, Line 5), “said it hired” (Appendix 20, Line 7) and “the newprocedureswill include”
(Appendix20,Line11).Whenreading thisarticle, itmentionedChipotlehiringa firmtohelpwith
the “additional” cases that had been reported (Appendix 20, Line 7-9).We believe this could be
interpreted by some stakeholders that the crisiswas uncontrollable leading to believe that there
wereconstantlynewincidentsoffoodsafetyoutbreaksoccurringnationwidefromChipotleontop
oftheoriginalE.ColiincidentbeginninginAugust,2015.
From the comments that were posted on this article, it could be understood that
stakeholderswhocommentedinterpretedthisarticleasChipotledidnotknowhowtomanagefood
safety. One stakeholder suggested, “Here’s an idea Chipotle employees: WASH YOUR DAMN
HANDS!” (Appendix 22, 3). We believe that the stakeholder responded to this article possibly
becauseatthistimeduringtheon-goingcrisis,therewasnoanswersastowheretheoutbreakhad
originated, which could have possibly created uncertainty, as the article stated, “The ingredient
responsible for the illnesses has not yet been determined” (Appendix 20, Line 32). This sentence
couldindicatethatupuntilnowChipotlehadnotbeenabletoconnecttheoriginoftheoutbreakto
an ingredient. When those affected did not have a person or a company to blame, some
stakeholders could be in search for someone or something to blame. In this case, a stakeholder
choseChipotle toblameby stating,“Good ideabutbad timing. The safety standards shouldhave
beeninplacebeforepeoplebecameill”(Appendix22,3).
Since the contentof thearticlewasa general summaryofwhat thepress release (Fourth
pressrelease,Appendix8)hadstated,someindividualswhocommentedonthearticlemighthave
felt that theyshouldgivesuggestionstoChipotle.Onesaid,“Butoneknowsthatecoli livesa long
timeon freshvegetablesan inuncookedmeet.Washand cookyour food if youareunsureof the
origin.Heatkillsbacteria”(Appendix22,3).RegardlessofthearticlementionedthatChipotlehired
IEH Laboratories to help improve its food safety, some stakeholders felt the need to share their
opinionse.g.,
“startbytrainingthestaffonproperfoodhandling.Youcan’tgetsomecheese,scratchyour
headandthengoforthelettucewiththesamepairofgloves(ifyourserverhappenedtousethem).
Onanothervisit,adifferentpersonwasputtingtheirglovedhandsontheirjeansattheirbuttarea
andthenusingthesameglovestoputthetoppingsontheburrito.Inbothcases,mywifeaskedthem
tochangeglovesandtheyactedannoyed.”(Appendix22,3)
Thecommentabovecould lead the reader tobelieve thatnotonlyhadChipotlehad food
safetyconcernsthepastfewmonths,butthatithadbeenanongoingissuethatsomestakeholders
Page 93
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
94
hadnoted,andthiscouldpotentiallychangesomestakeholders’opinionsofChipotle.Furthermore,
weaskedintheconductedsurveyforthisthesis,iftheoutbreaksaffectedtherespondents’choice
ofeatingatChipotle(Appendix3).ThegraphbelowshowsthateightpercentateatChipotleduring
theoutbreaks,andinaddition12percentwouldliketoreturn.Thisshowsusthatsomepeopleare
still willing to eat at Chipotle despite food safety issues. Also, the graph shows that 27 percent
responded by selecting “Yes, I did not eat there again during the outbreaks” (Appendix 3). We
believethatthese27percentmayreturntoChipotleafterthecrisisandafterthebrandimagehas
beenrestored.
Didtheseoutbreaks/violationsaffectyourchoiceofeatingatChipotle?
Overall, this article summarized what was published in the press release (Fourth press
release, Appendix 8),while changing some of thewords to fit the news article, e.g. ‘commits’ to
‘vowed’, which we believe is the news channel wanting readers to interpret that Chipotle had
promisedtoensurehealthierfoodforitsstakeholders.
Fourtharticle,NPR-February1,2016:
“E.ColiOutbreaksatChipotleRestaurants‘AppearToBeOver’CDCsays”
Thisarticle,writtenbyMerritKennedyofNPR,waspostedonFebruary8,2016.Thecover
photoforthisarticlewasapictureoftheinsideofaChipotlelocationinSeattlewithacustomerthat
was being served. To summarize this article, Kennedy discussed what information the CDC had
releasedconcerning thecrisisanddiscussedwhatother information regarding thecrisishadbeen
released on NPR previously. Specifically mentioning how the “outbreaks have challenged the
(Appendix 3)
Page 94
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
95
country’s imageof serving, fresh,healthful ‘foodwith integrity.’ It’salsohurt sales” (Appendix21,
Lines25-26).Kennedyalsomentionedthat,“thebadpublicityhastakenatollonthebottomlineat
thecompany,whichhaswarnedthatitssalesfellinthelastquarter”(Appendix21,Lines27-28).This
articleendedbycitingthat,“thecompanyhasvowedtoimplementanewplantoestablishitselfas
an ‘industry leader in food safety’” (Appendix 21, Lines 33-34). By ending the article mentioning
Chipotle’s motto, “Food with Integrity” could be interpreted as NPR showing stakeholders that
althoughthemottopromisedreliablefood,Chipotlehashadtore-promise itsoriginalgoaldueto
theongoingcrisis.
Fromthebeginningofthisarticle,stakeholdersmayinterpretthroughthetitlethatalthough
theCDCwasanauthoritativefigureregardingfoodsafety,thatnonethelessitwasnotconfidentin
its testing as it cannot confirm or deny that the E. Coli came fromChipotle.We believe thiswas
confirmed ina stakeholder’s commentwhenstating“the ‘investigation’ foundnothing” (Appendix
22,4).Whenthepersonquotedthewordinvestigation,thiscouldbeawayofquestioningChipotle
and the CDC for their efforts to solve the crisis. Also by stating that the investigation was
unsuccessfulcouldcreateuncertaintyforstakeholders.
Whenconsidering theothercommentsconnected to thisarticle,onepersonsaid that the
outbreakswereover“becausepeoplehavestoppedeatingthere” (Appendix22,4).Respondingto
thiscomment,anotherstakeholderreplied,“thelineatmyneighborhoodstorehasstayedrelatively
long.However,Ihavenoticedfewerdinerseatinginside.I’llwaitanothermonthorso.Idomissthe
loadedchickentacos”(Appendix22,4).WebelievethatsomestakeholdersatthispointinFebruary
2016stillquestionedwhetherornottoreturntoChipotle,eventhoughtheCDCconfirmedthatthe
outbreakwasoverbutwithoutpromising this100percent.Another comment froma stakeholder
voicedhis/herconcernbystating,
“Ihopethey’retryingtotracetheinfection.E.Coli isn’tspoilagebacteria– it lives inanon
animals and contaminates food in processing. Somewhere out there one of Chipotle’s [hopefully
former] suppliersmay still beprocessing foodand sending tounwitting restaurants. Thenorovirus
outbreaks, however, are 100% Chipotle’s fault. That’s a matter of basic sanitation and decent
employeetreatment”(Appendix22,4)
Attheendofthisarticle,KennedyincludedthatChipotle‘vowed’totakecorrectiveaction
to better its food safety. This statementmade on NPR could have lead this stakeholder to voice
his/her opinion on how Chipotle had not done or accomplished its ‘vowed’ statements. A
stakeholdercommentedonhowChipotlevowedtobetteritselfasanindustryleadersaying,“Well
Page 95
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
96
yes,unlesstheyhavetheabsoluteworstPRfirm/peopleonhand,onewouldpresumethiswouldbea
nextstep” (Appendix22,4).Thiscommentcouldbe interpretedashe/shequestionedChipotlefor
itseffortstobetteritsfoodsafetystandards.ThisgoestoshowthatalthoughChipotlehadpromised
tobetteritsfoodsafety,somestakeholdersmaystillbeupsetwithChipotlefromthebeginningas
thecompanydidnotstickbyitsmotto.Inadditiontothis,resultsfromthesurveyconductedforthis
thesis showed that 10 percent of respondents do not want to eat Chipotle again after the food
safetyviolationshadoccurred(Appendix3).
5.3.2 MediaCoverageofDomino’s
FirstVideo,April15,2009:“DirtyDirtyDominospizza”
Thefirstvideowascalled“DirtyDirtyDominospizza”andthevideostemmedfromanews
segment on WCNC, Charlotte (North Carolina), this channel is a NBC news affiliate. The news
segmentwasaboutDomino’sfoodviolationcrisis,butthemainfocuswasaboutthetwoemployees,
especiallythefemaleemployee,KristyHammonds,asthenewsfoundoutthatshewasaregistered
sex offender. The news anchor questioned why Domino’s would hire Kristy in the first place by
stating, “We asked this Domino’s why they would hire Kristy with her record – the cooperate
response; local franchise owners are responsible for hiring. The local answer?Well, we never got
one.” (Appendix23,Lines18-20).WebelievethatthisstatementcouldputDomino’s inanegative
positionasthenewsportrayedDomino’sasacompanythatdidnotwanttoanswerandmaybeeven
as a company that did notwant to take responsibility. The answer fromDomino’s stating, “local
franchise owners are responsible for hiring” (Appendix 23, Lines 19-20), could be interpret as
Domino’s was in denial where the company tried to shift the blame. Stakeholders could also
interpretthefactthatthenewsneverreceivedananswerfromthefranchiseinNorthCarolinaasit
simply did not care. We believe that the news and media have the power to portray a given
companyorperson inthewaytheyfindmost interesting inordertoproducethemost interesting
news,whichweargueisalsoanimportantaspecthere.Inrelationtothelanguageusedbythenews
media, it couldhadomitted somedetails from the cooperate responseusing the statement to its
ownadvantage.However,wearguethatsomestakeholderswouldnot takethat intoaccountand
therebyinterpretthenewsmedia’sstatementasthetruth.
The news segment endedwith a statement from the news anchor stating, “Of coursewe
knowthat their take, thepeople in thevideo,saidwell thiswasalla jokeandtheysaytheynever
served the food. However, police tell me that the video was the overwhelming evidence that is
Page 96
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
97
leading to this charge.” (Appendix 23, Lines 26-28).We argue that this statement set up the two
employees against the police,which tomany people are an authority. This could create a power
distance between the two parts, and because the police generally are seen as authority, some
peoplemightbemorewillingtobelievethisstatement.Asstatedearlier,thecontentofthesegment
focusedon the twoemployees and theonly timeDomino’swasmentioned as a companywas in
lines18-20(Appendix23).
Lookingthroughthecommentsofthevideo,wefindapattern;commentsfrompeoplethat
thoughtpositivelyaboutDomino’s,peoplewhodidnot likeDomino’sandpeoplewhodidnot like
theprankvideo,butdidnotmentionDomino’s.ThefirstselectedcommentwaspostedonMay4,
2016andstated“Istill loveDominos…” (Appendix25,1).Anotherpersonquestionedthefocusof
thenewssegmentbystating,“Howisitrelevanttothevandalismofthepizzathatthewomanisa
sex offender lol.” (Appendix 25, 1). This comment was posted on April 20, 2016. Below this
comment, another person commented on May 12, 2016 stating, “it reflects the fact that there
existed prior knowledge indicating this woman is a scumbag, degenerate, unchanging cancer on
society”(Appendix25,1).Thispersonclearlythoughtthatthewomanshouldhaveneverbeenhired
inthefirstplace,whichcouldeffecttheperson’sperceptionofDomino’sashemighthavefeltthat
thecompanyhadapoorjudgment.
ThethirdcommentwaspostedinFebruary,2016andstated,“EewwIjustordereddominos
(feeling-sicksmiley)” (Appendix25,1).ThispersonwasprobablyusedtoorderDomino’sandafter
he/shehadseenthevideo,thepersonposted“eeww”,whichtousindicatesdisgustandthiscould
altertheperson’sperspectivetore-thinkhis/herpurchasedecisionnexttimethepersonisordering
foodfromDomino’s.Eventhoughthevideo issevenyearsold, thispersonwatched it inFebruary
2016agoandwasstillaffectedbyit.
The lastselectedcommentwasposted inNovember,2015and it stated,“Thesadthing is
thatDomino’spizzaissobadthatthetaintedpizzaswereprobablyanimprovement.Domino’spizza
isshit.Deliveredshitisstillshit.Andshitwithacouponisstillshit”(Appendix25,1).Thispersondid
notlikeDomino’s,andwearguethatthepersondidnotlikeDomino’sbeforehesawthevideo–the
videodidnotalterhisperceptionofthecompany,buthisperceptionmighthavehadthepotential
toalterotherreaders’perceptions.
SecondVideo,April17,2009:“DominosPizzaontheTodayShow-WorkersfiredforDominosprankvideo”
ThisnewssegmentoriginallystemmedfromtheTodayShow,ashowonNBCnews,andwas
uploaded on YouTube on April 17, 2009. The video began by stating that there was a crisis in
Page 97
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
98
relationstoDomino’sthatinvolveda“sickening”(Appendix24)videothatwaspostedonlinebytwo
ofthecompany’semployeesthat“claimitwasallaharmlessprankbutnowtheyareoutofwork,
andfacingcriminalcharges.”(Appendix24,Line2).Thenewsanchorcontinuedbywarningviewers
that thevideomightbe “a littledistasteful.” (Appendix24, Line3).Webelieve that the choiceof
wordscouldleadviewerstohaveanopinionaboutthesituationbeforetheyevensawtheclipsfrom
thevideobywarningthemthatitwasunpleasant.
Throughout the segment, it showed small clips from the original video with the two
employees that produced the video. The newsmentioned that these employees were in trouble
withthe“foodpolice”forpostingthisvideoonline(Appendix24,Lines8-9),andlaterstatedaquote
from Domino’s corporate, “anyone with a camera and Internet link can cause a lot of damage”
(Appendix24,Lines16-17).Thenewsanchorgaveadetaileddescriptionofwhatwashappeningin
the videomadeby the twoemployees, and repeated the individuals’ statements that “they insist
thatnoneofthefoodinquestionwaseverservedtocustomers”(Appendix24,Lines18-19).
Next,thenewsanchorinterviewedthefranchisemanageroftheConoverlocation(inNorth
Carolina) where the manager called the two employees “idiots” (Appendix 24, Line 23). Some
stakeholders could perceive this linguistic selection negatively as the term “idiot” is defined as a
stupidpersonandapersonoflowintelligence(OxfordDictionaries,n.d.).Afterthis,thenewsanchor
shiftedtheconversationandbroughtuppastexamplesofemployeesviolatingfoodsafetycode in
otherfastfoodrestaurants,thenshiftingbacktohowtheoneoftheemployeesemailedanapology
toDomino’s.Bystatingthis,someviewerscouldbelievethatDomino’swasnotatfaultforthetwo
employees’actions,asthevideonevershiftedtheblametoDomino’scorporatefortherepugnant
videosmadebytheemployees.
Whenlookingatthecommentsthathadbeenpostedonthisuploadednewsvideosegment,
therewere554commentsposted intotal.Althoughthecrisis tookplace in2009, themostrecent
commentwaspublishedinMay2016.Tous,thiscouldshowthateventhoughthecrisishadpassed,
socialmedia can prolong the life of events or even a given crisis due to online conversations. In
November2015,onestakeholderposted,
“Profoundly and inexplicably stupid. How they could think – even for a minute that
contaminatingacustomer’sfoodis“funny”,isbeyondexplanation.Hopefully,theywillneverworkin
a restaurantagain.Given theiraberrant senseofhumorandbehavior, theyaremore suited tobe
cops“(Appendix25,2)
Page 98
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
99
Regardless of this crisis being seven years old, this person comments as if it happened
yesterday. This could show that although information and comments about crises that had been
sharedthrougheWoM,nocommentsandpostsdisappearpermanently.
Althoughmostofthecommentsofthisvideousednegativelanguage,onepersonposted,“I
don’tseeanythingwrongwithit.ThehealthdepartmentareNazisandtheownersonlycareabout
profitsandpublicimage.IguaranteeNOONEwouldhavegottensickfromthisstunt.Theonlything
they’reguiltyof isapoor taste/senseofhumorandthat’sonlymyopinion.” (Appendix25,2).We
believethiscommentshowedthesmallpercentageofpeoplewhodidnottakefoodsafetyseriously
as according to the survey conducted for this thesis, findings showed that three percent of
respondentsdidnotfindfoodsafetyimportant(Appendix3).
Othercommentswheremadeonthisvideofrompeoplewhousednegative languagee.g.,
“that’sdisgusting.IorderfromDomino’s:(”(Appendix25,2),“yeahIsawthiswhenIwaslike9and
eversinceIhaven’tatethere”(Appendix25,2),“Dominostaste likeshitanyways.He’s justadding
more flavor” (Appendix 25, 2). These comments could be influenced by individuals’ pre-crisis
perspectives.
The latest commentwaspostedonMay13, 2016meaning that this videohas continued to
travelduetoeWoM,whichwebelievecouldbothremindpeopleofthecrisisorinformthemofthe
incidentfrom2009.Regardlessofthevideo,remindingindividualsorinformingthemandhavingthe
crisisonlineonasocialmediaplatformcouldgivetheopportunityforadiscussionthatcouldbeend
upwithpotential forbecominganonlinefirestormwhichcompaniestodayshouldtake inaccount
forwhenenduringacrisis.
5.3.3 SummaryofChipotleandDomino’sMediaCoverage
Sincewe have chosen to analyze fourwritten articles in regards to Chipotle and two news
segment videos on YouTube in relation to Domino’s, this could a difference in itself. Despite this
difference,wesawalmostthesamepatterninthecommentsforbothChipotleandDomino’s–the
commentswere amix of people that blamed the companies, people that talked about facts (e.g.
Norovirus) and a small group of people that remained positive about each company – but the
tendencyofthecommentswerenegativesentiments.
Eventhoughthemediachannelsaredifferent,wearguethatbothofthechannelsbelongto
thegenreofnewswherethecontextistoinformpeople.Inadditiontoinformingpeople,webelieve
thatnewsalsohas thepotentialofeffecting somepeoples’perceptionofagivenbrandand their
brandloyaltydependingonthelinguisticselection.
Page 99
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
100
ThecommentsfromthetwonewssegmentsalsoshowedusthateventhoughDomino’scrisis
happened in 2009, somepeople still find,watch and then commenton the segments. Tous, this
showstheimpactthatsocialmediacanhaveonagivencompany’scrisisandreputation.Onceitis
outonthe Internet, itcanbehardtocontrolandremove.Thesametendencyappliestothefood
violation (the prank) video made by the two Domino’s employees. Even though the video was
removedthreedaysafteritwaspublishedonYouTube,sevenyearslater,itisstilleasytofindcopies
oftheoriginalvideo.
6. Conclusion
As mentioned in the introduction, due to the constant advancement of technology,
companiesshouldremainawareinregardstotheirreputationandrespondwithsocialmediawhen
acrisisemergesasapublic relations tactic (OttandTheunissen2015,97). In2009,Domino’swas
exposedtoacrisisinvolvingsocialmediaandlater,in2015/2016,acrisisemergedforChipotle.This
thesis has examined each company’s crisis communication, brand image and use of socialmedia,
whenseekingtoanswerthefollowingproblemstatement;
HowdidChipotleMexicanGrillandDomino’sPizzachoosetomanageandrespondtotheirgiven
crisesandhowhavetheInternetandsocialmediaplatformsaffectedtheprogressionofthe
companies’crisiscommunicationstrategies?Furthermore,wealsowondertowhateffecteachofthe
crisesaffectedstakeholders’perceivedimageofthecompaniesandtheirindividualbrands.
Socialmedia has evolved since Domino’s single-event crisis occurred seven years prior to
Chipotle’s ongoing crisis in 2015/2016. Along with the evolvement, the use of social media has
developedoverthepastsevenyearsforbothstakeholdersandcompanies.SincebothChipotleand
Domino’s were exposed to incidents, which placed them at the third step of Massey’s image
managementmodel,eachcompanywasinneedtoregainitsimage.Whenregainingitsimage,the
use of social media played a crucial role. Most stakeholders are informed of crises, such as
Chipotle’s, through its choiceof socialmediaplatforms andby theuseof the Internet.With this,
social media has altered to become a fundamental point of communication for companies to
communicate with its stakeholders today in 2016, and if ignored could lead to worsen that
company’simagefurtherthanrepair.Ifacompanychoosestoignoresocialmediaduringacrisis,we
believe it could lead to an online firestorm through an abundance of negative eWoM
communication.
Page 100
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
101
Focusingon theuseof socialmedia,Chipotle’schose tousesocialmediaasaplatformto
communicate with stakeholders. This gave the company the ability to communicate with its
stakeholdersandrespondtotheirworries,negativeopinionsandquestionsaboutthecompanyand
thecrisis.Domino’son theotherhand,at the timeof itscrisis,utilizedFacebook tocommunicate
withstakeholdersbutnottothesamevolumeasChipotle.Webelievethisisduetothedifferentuse
of social media in 2009. Regardless of Domino’s crisis being in 2009, the comments from
stakeholdersarestillpostedtoday.Becauseofthis,wearguethatonceacrisisispostedonline,itis
ontheInternetuntiltheuserchoosestodeleteitandeventhen,agivencompanyorpersoncannot
beclearoftheattentiononline.ThisisseeninDomino’scase–eventhoughtheoriginalvideowas
removedthreedaysafteritwaspublished,copiesofthevideocanstillbefoundtoday.
BecauseDomino’scrisiswasasingleeventthattookplace,theoverallcommunicationwas
muchfasterthanChipotles.Chipotlewaitedapproximatelytwomonthstopublishapressreleaseto
itsstakeholders,whichwebelievegavetimeforindividualstocreatetheirownopinionsaboutthe
crisis. These opinions were most likely posted on a social media platform, which could create
potentialfortheorganizationsimagetobeaffectedasTwitterisusedforconversationregardingall
topics.Overall,Domino’sregaineditsimageinduetimethroughitscrisiscommunicationstrategies.
Domino’s utilized both Coombs and Benoit’s strategies, some of which, are interchangeable.
BecauseDomino’swasinthevictimclusterwherethereisweakattributionofcrisisresponsibility,
thecompanywasnottoblameforthecrisisas itwasarumorwhereinformationcausedharmon
thecompany.WhileusingBenoit’sstrategies,Domino’suseddenialandthesub-strategyofshifting
the blame onto the two employees who caused the crisis. Domino’s also used reducing
offensiveness with the sub-strategy of bolstering by informing stakeholders of its positive past
efforts and mortification by apologizing to its stakeholders. When using Coombs strategies,
Domino’s useddenial with the sub-strategy of scapegoating,bolstering with the sub category of
reminding its stakeholders what it had done in the past. Lastly, to rebuild its image, Domino’s
apologized,with the rebuilding posture asa strategy, forwhathadhappened to its stakeholders.
ThroughDomino’s crisis communication strategies,with aid from socialmedia,we believe that it
regaineditsimageandmovedbackuptomaintainingitsimageaccordingtoMassey.
For Chipotle, its crisis was ongoing and could be categorized as intentional/preventable
clusteraccordingtoCoombs,wheretherearestrongattributionsofcrisisresponsibilityasthetwo
outbreaks of Norovirus were human error by employees working while sick and the multiple
outbreaksofE.Coliwereproductharmthatcausedthecompanytoundergohealth investigations
and close locations as suggested by the CDC. Also, the ongoing crisis could be labeled as
Page 101
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
102
organizationalmisdeedasstakeholderswereputatriskbythecompany,whichresultedinhundreds
ofindividualsbecomingsickfromitsproducts.
Asmentioned earlier, Chipotle responded quite slowly to the crisis,which Coombs highly
suggests against. Once responding through press releases, Chipotle included three of Coombs
strategies to regain its image. At the beginning of the crisis, Chipotle used the strategy of
defeasibility due to a lack of knowledge surrounding the outbreaks at that time. Later, Chipotle
moved into the rebuilding posture where Chipotle did apologize to its stakeholders along with
bolsteringitsimagetoremindstakeholdersoftheimportanceoffoodsafetytoitsbrand.“Foodwith
Integrity”beingChipotle’smotto, andhow stakeholdersperceive thebrand,didnothelp its food
safetycrisissincethecompanyadvertisesfoodreliability.Becauseofthis,Chipotlecontinuedtouse
bolsteringasastrategy,alongwithBenoit’scorrectiveactionstrategybyinformingitsstakeholders
whatwasoccurring toensurebetter foodsafety.Lastly,Chipotleusedmortification inattemptto
regainitsimagebyapologizingthroughbothpressreleasesandsocialmediastatements.
Today,Chipotle isstill inastateofregaining its image,asstakeholdersarestillhesitantto
return. Individualsfindfoodsafetytobeavery important issue,andwhenacompanyis inacrisis
likeChipotle’s,somestakeholderschoosetorefrainfromeatingattheserestaurants.Ontheother
hand, some stakeholders have high loyalty to the brand and regardless of food safety being an
importantissue,theychoosetoreturntotherestaurantbecauseoftheirloyalty.Overall,Domino’s
stakeholder’s loyaltydiffered fromChipotle’s. SomeofChipotle’s stakeholderswerevery insistent
about returning to Chipotle, and even during the outbreakswanted to eat there. Although some
stakeholders were persistent about returning, its sales fell during that quarter. Throughout
Chipotle’scrisiscommunicationstrategies,thecompanycontinuedtointeractwithitsstakeholders,
whichpositivelyinfluenceditscommunication.
Overall,sinceDomino’scrisistookplacein2009,itsoverallimagehasbeenregainedtoday
through its crisis communication strategies, the use of socialmedia andmaybe evendue to time
passing.Chipotle,ontheotherhand,isstillworkingtowardsregainingitsimage.Eachcompanyused
similarstrategieswhenregainingtheirimages,butthemajordifferencethatsetsthesuccessofthe
twocrisesapartisthetypeofcrisisclustersofeachcompany.Domino’swasavictimtoitscrisisand
Chipotle’scrisiswaspreventable.BecauseofChipotle’scrisisbeingpreventable,thedamagemaybe
moreinfluentialtotheprocessofitregainingitsimage,whereDomino’scrisiswasonesingle-event
crisisandChipotlewasseveral incidentscreatingalongongoingcrisis.Fortheuseofsocialmedia,
Domino’scrisisstemmedfromasocialmediaplatform,asthetwoemployeeswhocausedthecrisis,
uploadedthevideotoYouTubeandfromthere,througheWoM,spreadthevideowhichturnedinto
crisis.WebelieveitwasasuccessfulchoicethatDomino’sdecidedtousesocialmediatohelpaidits
Page 102
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
103
crisis communication, as this was the center of the crisis. For Chipotle, eWoM helped aid
stakeholders tobe informedof thecrisisandalsogaveChipotle theopportunity to respond to its
stakeholderstofacilitateitsimagerepairbyprovidingtransparency.
To conclude upon the significance of crisis communication and socialmedia, we say that
eWoM makes crisis communication involving social media unpredictable. It is impossible to say
whetherChipotle’scrisiswilleverreachatrueconclusion,orifitsongoingcrisiswillmerelyleadthe
company to failure. Social media and eWoM constitute both an opportunity and a challenge for
companiestodayasSiahetal.(2010)refertoasthedouble-edgedsword.
Page 103
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
104
7. References Abrantes,JoseL.,CláudiaSeabra,CristianaRaquelLagesandChanakaJayawardhena.2013.Driversofin-group andout-of-groupelectronicword-of-mouth(eWOM),EuropeanJournalofMarketing,Vol.47Iss7pp.1067–1088Ashforth,Blake,andFredA.Mael.1996.OrganizationalIdentityandStrategyasaContextfortheIndividual AdvancesinStrategicManagement20:19-64.AccessedMay24,2016.Doi:8-7633-0010-8.AssociatedPress.2015.“ChipotleVowstoTightenFoodSafetyStandardsinWakeofE.ColiCases.”NBCNews,Dec
4.Beaumie,Kim.n.d.”SocialConstructivism:Emergingperspectivesonlearning,teaching,andtechnology.”
AccessedMay25,2016.http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Social_ConstructivismBenoit,WilliamL.,1995.Accounts,Excuses,AndApologies:ATheoryofImageRestorationStrategies.Albany,
NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Benoit,WilliamL.,1997.ImageRepairDiscourseandCrisisCommunication.PublicRelationsReview23(2),177
186.AccessedFebruary23,16.DOI:10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0Benoit,WilliamL.2013.ImageRepairTheoryandCorporateReputation.HandbooksinCommunicationand
Media:HandbookofCommunicationandCorporateReputation,editedbyCraigE.Carroll,213-221.Chichester:BlackwellPublishingLtd.doi:10.1002/9781118335529.Ch.19
Benoit,WilliamL,.2014.Accounts,Excuses,andApologies,SecondEdition:ImageRepairTheoryandResearch. NewYork:SunyPress.Bhatia,VijayKumar.1993.AnalysingGenre:Languageuseinprofessionalsettings.Harlow:Longman.
Blackledge,Adrian.2015.DiscourseandPowerinaMultilingualWorld.JohnBenjaminPublishing
BMIElite.2016.“Chipotle’s‘Raincheck’FreeBurritoOfferCreatingBuzzAmongMillenials”.AccessedMay18,2016,http://bmielite.com/chipotles-raincheck-free-burrito-offer-creating-buzz-among-millenials/
BrianSolis.2009.“TheDomino’sEffect”.AccessedMay6,2016http://www.briansolis.com/2009/04/dominos- effect/
Brinkmann,Svend,andLeneTanggaard.2015.KvalitativeMetoder.HansReitzelsForlag
BritannicaAcademic.n.d."publicrelations".AccessedApril14,2016,http://academic.eb.com/EBchecked/topic/482470/public-relations
Burke,RonaldJ.,GraemeMartinandCaryL.Cooper.2011.Corporatereputation:ManagingOpportunitiesand
Page 104
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
105
Threats.GrowlerPublishingHouse,England.AccessedApril13,2016http://site.ebrary.com/lib/aalborguniv/detail.action?docID=10460648
BusinessDictionary,n.d.“DefinitionofTwitter”accessedMarch1,2016
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Twitter.htmlBusinessDictionary,n.d.“Stakeholder”.AccessedMay,2016
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/stakeholder.htmlBusinessWire,n.d.AccessedMay9,2016.http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/Carroll,CraigE.2015.HandbooksinCommunicationandMedia:HandbookofCommunicationandCorporate
Reputation(1).Somerset,US:Wiley-Blackwell.AccessedApril11,2016.ProQuestebrary.http://site.ebrary.com/lib/aalborguniv/detail.action?docID=10680778
Cattenaccio,Paula.2008.“PressReleasesasaHybridGenre:AddressingtheInformative/Promotional
Conundrum.”OAI18-1.AccessedMay24,2016.Doi:10.1075/prag.18.1.02catChicagoTribune.2015.“Chipotle’sfull-pageadapology.”AccessedMay,2016.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-chipotles-full-page-ad-apology-20151216-htmlstory.html
Collin,FinnandSimoKøppe.2012.HumanistiskVidenskabsteori.DRMultimedie
CommunicationsandMarketingFortheMedia,n.d.AccessedFebruary23,16https://www.ohio.edu/ucm/media/experts/ohioexpert.cfm?formid=1822088&pageid=2037904
Coombs,TimothyW.1995.ChoosingtheRightWords:TheDevelopmentofGuidelinesfortheSelectionofthe “Appropriate”Crisis-ResponseStrategies.ManagementCommunicationQuarterly8:447-476,
doi:10.1177/0893318995008004003.Coombs,TimothyW.2007.ProtectingOrganizationReputationsDuringaCrisis:TheDevelopmentandApplication
ofSituationalCrisisCommunicationTheory.CorporateReputationReview10,no.3:163-176.Coombs,TimothyW.2011.CrisisManagementandCommunciations.InstituteforPublicRelations. AccessedApril202016http://www.instituteforpr.org/crisis-management-and-communications/Coombs,TimothyW.2015.OngoingCrisisCommunication:Planning,ManagingandResponding.California.
AccessedApril13,2016https://books.google.dk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CkkXBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=Coombs,+Timothy+W.+2015.+Ongoing+Crisis+Communication:+Planning,+Managing+and+Responding.+California&ots=NGAa_kgj8e&sig=8_2t2ImUHWORagrIVGZcG6p2lfQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Coombs%2C%20Timothy%20W.%202015.%20Ongoing%20Crisis%20Communication%3A%20Planning%2C%20Managing%20and%20Responding.%20California&f=false
Coombs,W.TimothyandSherryJ.Holladay.2004.ReasonedActioninCrisisManagement.:In
RespondingtoCrisis:ARhetoricalApproachtoCrisisCommunication,editedbyDanP.MillarandRobertL.Heath,95-115.Mahwah,,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Page 105
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
106
“Chipotle.”Lastmodified2016.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chipotle. Chipotle.2015."ChipotleMovesAggressivelytoAddressIssuesinWashingtonandOregon."ChipotleInvestor
Relations.AccessedMay9,2016.http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=194775&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2106211
Chipotle.2015.“ChipotletoReopenNorthwestRestaurants.”ChipotleInvestorRelations.November10.
AccessedMay9,2016.http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=194775&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2111001Chipotle.2015.“ChipotleUpdatesonE.ColiInvestigation.”ChipotleInvestorRelations.November20. AccessedMay9,2016.http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=194775&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2114462Chipotle.2015.“ChipotleCommitstoBecomeIndustryLeaderinFoodSafety.”ChipotleInvestor
Relations.December4.AccessedMay9,2016.http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=194775&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2120228
Chipotle.2016.“NewChipotleFoodSafetyProceduresLargelyinPlace;CompanyWillShareLearnings
from2015OutbreaksatAll-TeamMeeting.”ChipotleInvestorRelations.January19.AccessedMay9,2016.http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=194775&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2130375
Chipotle,2016.“OurCompany.”AccessedMay,2016.https://www.chipotle.com/companyChipotle.2016.“ChipotleMexicanGrill,Inc.AnnouncesFourthQuarterandFullYear2015Results; CDCInvestigationOver;ChipotleWelcomesCustomersBacktoRestaurants.”ChipotleInvestor Relations.February2.AccessedMay9,2016.http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=194775&p=irol-
newsArticle&ID=2134993ChipotleFacebook.n.d.AccessedMay9,2016.https://www.facebook.com/chipotle/?fref=tsChipotleFoodwithIntegrity.n.d.https://www.chipotle.com/food-with-integrity.ChipotleInstagram.n.d.AccessedMay9,2016.https://www.instagram.com/chipotlemexicangrill/ChipotleTweets.n.d.AccessedMay9,2016. https://twitter.com/ChipotleTweets?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^authorClifford,Stephanie.2009.“PrankatDomino’sTaintsBrand”.April15.AccessedFebruary29, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/business/media/16dominos.html?_r=0
Daugherty,TerryandErnestHoffman.2014.eWOMandtheimportanceofcapturingconsumerattentionwithin socialmedia,JournalofMarketingCommunications,20:1-2,82-102.AcessedMay24,2016.DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2013.797764
Dictionary,n.d.,“DefinitionofBlogger.”AccessedMarch1,2016http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blogger
DigitalTrendsStaff,2016.AccessedMay20,2016http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-of-
social-networking/#:dFjh6Ab1FjXo7A
Page 106
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
107
DirtyDirtyDominospizza,2009.AccessedMay16,2016https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhBmWxQpedI
Domino’s101,n.d.AccessedMarch11,2016
https://biz.dominos.com/web/public/about-dominos/fun-factsDomino’s2012press,n.d.AccessedMay6,2016http://phx.corporateir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=135383&p=irol-
news&nyo=4Domino’s,n.d.AccessedFebruary29,2016https://biz.dominos.com/web/public/welcomeDomino’sFacebook,2016.AccessedMarch11,2016https://www.facebook.com/Dominos/?fref=tsDomino’sDK,n.d.AccessedMarch11,2016https://www.dominos.dk/franchisingDomino’sInstagram,n.d.AccessedMarch11,2016https://www.instagram.com/dominos/DominosPizzaontheTodayShow,2009.AccessedMay16,2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaNuE3DsJHMDomino’sPresidentRespondstoPrankVideo,2009.AccessedMay2,2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dem6eA7-A2IDomino’sTwitter,n.d.AccessedMarch11,2016https://twitter.com/dominosDomino’svision,missionandvalues,n.d.AccessedMarch11,2016
https://www.dominos.co.nz/inside-dominos/corporate/vision-and-missionDomino’sYouTube,n.d.AccessedMay2,2016
https://www.youtube.com/user/dominosvids/videos?flow=grid&view=0&sort=daEdwards,Lee.2013.EncyclopediaofPublicRelations-CriticalDiscourseAnalysis.EditedbyRobertL. Heath.SAGEPublications,ThousandOaksPrint.
Doi:http://dx.doi.org.zorac.aub.aau.dk/10.4135/9781452276236.n121Ehrlich,EvelynandDukeFanelli.2012.TheFinancialServicesMarketingHandbook.BloombergPress,an
ImprintofWileyEvans,Dave.2008.SocialmediaMarketing:AnHouraDay.Hoboken,NJ,USA:Wiley.Accessed May27,2016.ProQuestebrary.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/aalborguniv/detail.action?docID=10257671Fairclough,Norman.2014.“Introduction,inhisLanguageandPower,3rdaddition.London:RoutledgeFairclough,Norman.2013.Criticaldiscourseanalysisandcriticalpolicystudies.London:RoutledgeFairclough,Norman.2010.CriticalDiscourseAnalysis:TheCriticalStudyofLanguage.Vol.2.TaylorandFrancis.Fairclough,Norman.1989.LanguageandPower.PearsonEducationLimited.EnglandFearn-Banks,Kathleen.2007.CrisisCommunications:ACasebookApproach.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates
Page 107
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
108
Feldman,PercyMarquina,RolandoArellanoBahamondeandIsabelleVelasquezBellido.2013.AnewApproachforMeasuringCorporateReputation.RevistadeAdministracaodeEmpresas.AccessedApril13,2016.http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rae/v54n1/a06v54n1.pdf
Flyvbjerg,Bent.2006.FiveMisunderstandingsAboutCase-StudyResearch.vol.12,nr.2.SAGELtd.Frandsen,FinnandWinniJohansen.2010.CrisisCommunication,Complexity,andtheCartoonAffair:ACase
Study.InTheHandbookofCrisisCommunication.EditedbyCoombs,TimothyW.andSherryJ.Holladay,425-448.WestSussex:Wiley-Blackwell,2010
Fronz,Christian.2012.StrategicManagementinCrisisCommunication-AMultinationalApproach.Hamburg,
DE:DiplomicaVerlag.AccessedApril13,2016.ProQuestebrary.http://site.ebrary.com/lib/aalborguniv/detail.action?docID=10553205
Groves,RobertM.,FloydJ.Fowler,MickP.Couper,JamesM.Lepkowski,EleanorSingerandRoger
Tourangeau.2004.SurveyMethodology.Hoboken,NJ:J.WileyPrint.Horn,InesSchulze,TorbenTaros,SvenDirkes,LucasHüer,MaximilianRose,RaphaelTietmeyerandEfthymios
Constantinides.2015.Businessreputationandsocialmedia:Aprimeronthreatsandresponses.MacMillanPublishers
IFA,n.d.,“Domino’sPizza”.AccessedMarch11,2016.http://www.franchise.org/dominos-pizza-franchiseIhlström,CarinaandJonasLundberg.2003.AGenrePerspectiveonOnlineNewspaperFrontPage
Design.JournalofWebEngineering(2004):050-074.AccessedMay25,2016.http://www.ida.liu.se/~TDDC62/material/JWE050-074
Jacobsen,MichaelHviid.n.d.Socialkonstruktivisme.Medie-ogKommunikationsleksikon.AccessedMarch6,
2016http://medieogkommunikationsleksikon.dk.zorac.aub.aau.dk/socialkonstruktivisme/Jacques,Amy,2009.“Domino’sDeliversDuringCrisis:TheCompany’sStep-by-StepResponseAfteraVulgar
VideoGoesViral”,August17.ThePublicRelationsStrategist.AccessedApril20,2016http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/TheStrategist/Articles/view/8226/102/Domino_s_Delivers_During_Crisis_The_Company_s_Step#.VzYthGCGmPo
Johansen,WinniandFinnFrandsen.2007.Krisekommunikation.Frederiksberg:ForlagetSamfundslitteratur.Jørgensen,MarianneandLouisePhillips.2002.DiscourseAnalysisasTheoryandMethod.SAGEPublications.Kennedy,Merrit.2016.“E.ColiOutbreaksatChipotleRestaurants‘AppearToBeOver,’CDCSays.” NPR,February1.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/01/465182718/e-coli-outbreaks-at-chipotle-restaurants-appear-to-be-over-cdc-says
Kjørup,Søren.2013."Hermeneutik."Medie-ogKommunikationsleksikon.AccessedMarch6,2016.
http://medieogkommunikationsleksikon.dk.zorac.aub.aau.dk/hermeneutik-2/
LearnWhatHappened,n.d.Accessed12March,2016.https://www.chipotle.com/2015incidents
Lomborg,Stine.2011.Socialmediaascommunicativegenres.MedieKultur.SocietyofMediaresearchersInDenmark:55-71
Page 108
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
109
Luttrell,Regina.2015.SocialMedia:HowtoEngage,ShareandConnect.Lanham,MD:Rowmand&Littlefield.Jones,Adam.2015,“Domino’s:TheSecond-LargestPizzaChainintheWorld”March26.AccessedMarch11,
2016http://marketrealist.com/2015/03/dominos-second-largest-pizza-chain-world/
Melnick,J..n.d.“LocalHeroesTopGoldenArches”RetrievedfromQSRMagazine:http://www2.qsrmagazine.com/articles/exclusives/0810/customer-1.phtml
Millar,DanPyleandRobertL.Heath.2004.Respondingtocrisis:arhetoricalapproachtocrisiscommunication.
London:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,PublishersNYSEMKTRegulations.n.d.“RulesandDisciplinaryActions".AccessedMay9,2016. https://www.nyse.com/regulation/nyse-mkt/rules-and-disciplinary-actions.Olvasrud,Thor.2012."5StepsforHowtoBetterManageYourData."5July.Accessed12March2016. http://www.cio.com/article/2394432/data-management/5-steps-for-how-to-better-manage-your-
data.htmlOtt,LarissaandPetraTheunissen.2015.PublicRelationsReview,Reputationsatrisk:
Engagementduringsocialmediacrises
OxfordDictionaries,n.d.“Idiot”.AccessedMay,2016.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/idiotOxfordDictionaries.n.d.“Retweet”.AccessedMay,2016. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/retweet
Park,Jaram,andMeeyoungChaandHohKimandJaeseungJeong.2012.ManagingBadNewsinSocialMedia:ACaseStudyonDomino’sPizzaCrisis.AssociationfortheAdvancementofArtificialIntelligence.AccessedMay25,2016.http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM12/paper/view/4672
“Pathos”n.d.AccessedMay2016.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-9780199568758-e-1983
Perez,Jessica.2015.“SoCalChipotleLinkedtoNorovirusOutbreaksAffectingNearly100People.”NBCSouthernCalifornia,September4.AccessedMay2016,http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/SoCal-Chipotle-Linked-to-Norovirus-Outbreak-Affecting-Nearly-100-People-324482901.html
Pfeffer,J,Xorbach,T.,Carley,K.M.2013.Understandingonlinefirestorms:Negativeword-of-mouthdynamicsinsocialmedianetworks.JournalofMarketingCommunications20.AccessedApril19,2016.Doi:10.1080/13527266.2013.797778.
"PostingaTweet"n.d.AccessedDecember27,2014.https://support.twitter.com/groups/50-welcome-to-twitter/topics/204-the-basics/articles/15367-posting-a-tweet#
Page 109
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
110
Protalinski,Emil.2011."FacebookUpdateStatusUpdateCharacterLimitto63,206",November30.AccessedDecember27,2014.http://www.zdnet.com/article/facebook-increases-status-update-character-limit-to-63206/
“PublicRelations”n.d.AccessedMay2016. http://global.britannica.com/topic/public-relations-communications“Reputation”n.d.AccessedMay,2016.http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/reputation.htmlRogelberg,StevenG.1997.HowtoConductOrganizationalSurveys:AStep-by-StepGuide.Personnel
Psychology50(3):752-754.http://search.proquest.com/docview/220138584?accountid=8144Romenti,StefaniaandGraziaMurtarelli.2014.Organisations'ConversationsinSocialMedia:Applying
DialogueStrategiesinTimesofCrises.CorporateCommunications:AnInternationalJournal19(1),10-33.AccessedApril23,2016.dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-05-2012-0041
Seymour,MikeandSimonMoore.2000.EffectiveCrisisManagement:WorldwidePrinciplesandPractice.
London:Cassell.Saris,WillemE.andIrmtraudN.Gallhofer.2007.Design,Evaluation,andAnalysisofQuestionnairesforSurvey
Research.NewYork:JohnWiley&SonsInc.Sellnow,TimothyL.andMatthewW.Seeger.2013.FoundationsinCommunicationTheory:TheorizingCrisis
Communication.WestSussex:JohnWileyandSons.Siah,JoannaA.M.,NamrataBansalandAugustinePang.2010.NewMedia:ANewMediuminEscalating
Crises?.CorporateCommunications:AnInternationalJournal15(2),143-155.AccessedApril23,2016.dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281011037919
Sue,ValerieM.andLoisA.Ritter.2007.ConductingOnlineSurveys.ThousandOaks,CA:SAGE Publications,Inc.doi:http://dx.doi.org.zorac.aub.aau.dk/10.4135/9781412983754Swann,JoannaandJohnPratt.EducationalResearchinPractice:MakingSenseofMethodology.
London:Continuum,2003.Tomlinson,Stuart.2015.“E.colisickensatleast22peoplewhoatatChipotleinOregonand
Washington.”OregonLive,October31.http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/e_coli_sickens_at_least_22_peo.html
Tuttle,Brad.2012.“NothingtoHide:WhyRestaurantsEmbracetheOpenKitchen.”Time,August20.
http://business.time.com/2012/08/20/nothing-to-hide-why-restaurants-embrace-the-open-kitchen/UsingHashtagsonTwittern.d.“TwitterSupport”.AccessedMay,2016.
https://support.twitter.com/entries/49309#Weber,Stefan.2002.“MediaandtheConstructionofReality”.AccessedMarch6,2016.
http://www.mediamanual.at/en/pdf/Weber_etrans.pdfWeiner,B.1985.Anattributionaltheoryofachievementmotivationandemotion.Psychological Review,92(4),548-573.doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Page 110
AAU-SIV MasterThesis2016 SullivanandPetersen
111
Wodak,RuthandMichaelMeyer.2002.MethodsofCriticalDiscourseAnalysis.SAGEPublicationsInc.
Yates,JoanneandWandaJ.Orlikowski.1992.GenresofOrganizationalCommunication:AStructurationalApproachtoStudyingCommunicationandMedia.TheAcademyofManagementReview17(2).
AcademyofManagement:299–326.http://www.jstor.org/stable/258774
Yin,RobertK.2009.CaseStudyResearch–DesignandMethods.FourthEdition.SAGELtd.