thesis sullivan and petersen 2016 - aalborg universitet€¦ · aau - siv master thesis 2016...

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.


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


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


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.)


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


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.!!!


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!


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


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


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


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:


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


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.


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


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


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”


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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)


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).


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)


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.).


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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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.


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


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


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):


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


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).


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


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.


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


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"


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)


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


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


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.)


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


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)


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”


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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).


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”


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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)


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)


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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”


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


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)


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


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


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


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)


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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#


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


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.

thesis sullivan and petersen 2016 - aalborg universitet€¦ · aau - siv master thesis 2016...

Documents