Faster? Softer? Or More Formal? A Study on the Methods of Enterprises’ Crisis Response on Social Media
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Research Background
2.1.1. Differentiations in Enterprise Crisis Communication on Social Media
2.1.2. Factors Influencing Corporate Crisis Dissemination on Social Media Platforms
2.1.3. Enterprise Crisis Responses on Social Media
2.2. Research Framework and Hypotheses
2.2.1. Response Timing: Response Time and Stages
2.2.2. Enterprise Crisis Response Modes
2.2.3. Content of Enterprise Crisis Responses
3. Design of the Study
3.1. Original Data
3.2. Data Processing and Calculation
3.2.1. Data Description
3.2.2. Dependent Variables
3.2.3. Independent Variables
- Timing of the Enterprise Crisis Response
- 2.
- Enterprise Crisis Response Modes
- 3.
- Content of Enterprise Crisis Responses
3.2.4. Other Control Variables
- (1)
- represents the ith time period in the initial occurrence’s time period of the enterprise. Based on the national unified time period division standard, time periods are divided into four stages: 1–8 am, 8 am–1 pm, 1–7 pm, and 7 pm–1 am. In this paper, the time period 1–8 am was set as the reference.
- (2)
- represents the type of the incident type. The incident types are divided into several categories: product attributes, marketing services, corporate values, illegal and criminal activities, sensitive issues, internal corporate management, and corporate strategies. The product attributes category was considered to be the reference. More precisely, product attribute incidents are the enterprise crisis incidents caused by product quality and other issues. Marketing service incidents are the enterprise crisis incidents caused by improper marketing publicity and marketing activities of the enterprise. Corporate value incidents are the enterprise crisis incidents triggered by many factors, including insufficient corporate ESG, corporate social responsibility, and corporate annual reports of low quality. Illegal and criminal incidents are the enterprise crisis incidents caused by criminal cases, such as tax evasion and tax fraud involving the enterprise, or those involving employees, including prostitution and bribery. Sensitive issue incidents are the enterprise crisis incidents triggered by issues related to ideology in the daily operation. Internal corporate management incidents are the enterprise crisis incidents caused by non-criminal cases and non-ideological issues, such as excessive work, layoffs, and salaries of internal employees. Corporate strategy incidents are the enterprise crisis incidents triggered by enterprise acquisitions, asset sales, etc.
- (3)
- represents the platform where the crisis incident first occurred, while setting the online media platform as the reference.
3.2.5. Content Coding
3.3. Research Model
- Study on the Response Timing
- 2.
- Enterprise Crisis Response Modes
- 3.
- Content of Enterprise Responses
4. Obtained Results
4.1. Results and Analysis of the Timing of Corporate Response
4.2. Results and Analysis of the Manner of Corporate Response
4.3. Results and Analysis of the Content of Corporate Crisis Response
4.4. Results and Analysis of Other Control Variables
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Coombs, W.T. Protecting Organization Reputations during a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2007, 10, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Z.; Zhang, H.; McDonnell, D.; Ahmad, J.; Cheshmehzangi, A.; Yuan, C. Crisis Communication Strategies for Health Officials. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 796572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denisova, A. Viral Journalism. Strategy, Tactics and Limitations of the Fast Spread of Content on Social Media: Case Study of the United Kingdom Quality Publications. Journalism 2022, 24, 146488492210777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeffer, J.; Zorbach, T.; Carley, K.M. Understanding Online Firestorms: Negative Word-of-Mouth Dynamics in Social Media Networks. J. Mark. Commun. 2014, 20, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, J.; Ouyang, Z.; Chen, H.A. Well Known or Well Liked? The Effects of Corporate Reputation on Firm Value at the Onset of a Corporate Crisis. Strateg. Manag. J. 2017, 38, 2103–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jagiello, R.D.; Hills, T.T. Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication. Risk Anal. 2018, 38, 2193–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deborah, A.; Michela, A.; Anna, C. How to Quantify Social Media Influencers: An Empirical Application at the Teatro Alla Scala. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowry, P.B.; Zhang, J.; Wang, C.; Siponen, M. Why Do Adults Engage in Cyberbullying on Social Media? An Integration of Online Disinhibition and Deindividuation Effects with the Social Structure and Social Learning Model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2016, 27, 962–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghozlen, B.B. Crisis Construction in the Contemporary Communication Environment: A Dynamic, Complex, and Mis/Disinformation-Rich Process. Любoслoвие 2023, 23, 195–205. [Google Scholar]
- Coombs, W.T.; Holladay, S. An Extended Examination of the Crisis Situations: A Fusion of the Relational Management and Symbolic Approaches. J. Public Relat. Res. 2001, 13, 321–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y. The Social-Mediated Crisis Communication Research: Revisiting Dialogue between Organizations and Publics in Crises of China. Public Relat. Rev. 2019, 46, 101769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benoit, W.L. Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication. Public Relat. Rev. 1997, 23, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seeger, M.W. Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 2006, 34, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.-H.; Lin, Y.-H.; Su, S.-H. Crisis Communicative Strategies in Taiwan: Category, Continuum, and Cultural Implication. Public Relat. Rev. 2005, 31, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kietzmann, J.H.; Hermkens, K.; McCarthy, I.P.; Silvestre, B.S. Social Media? Get Serious! Understanding the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media. Bus. Horiz. 2011, 54, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Chen, Q.; Evans, R. How Official Social Media Affected the Infodemic among Adults during the First Wave of COVID-19 in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bukar, U.A.; Jabar, M.A.; Sidi, F.; Nor, R.B.; Abdullah, S.; Ishak, I. How Social Media Crisis Response and Social Interaction Is Helping People Recover from COVID-19: An Empirical Investigation. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 2022, 5, 781–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adi, W. Simplified Social Mediated Crisis Communication Model during Crisis in Indonesia: A Case Study on How Customers of Indonesia Commuter Line Train Company Seek Information on a Train Delay Due to the Double Track Trial on April 12, 2019. KnE Soc. Sci. 2020, 4, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tse, Y.K.; Loh, H.; Ding, J.; Zhang, M. An Investigation of Social Media Data during a Product Recall Scandal. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2018, 12, 733–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Y.; Liu, B.F. The Blog-Mediated Crisis Communication Model: Recommendations for Responding to Influential External Blogs. J. Public Relat. Res. 2010, 22, 429–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, Y. How Social Media Is Changing Crisis Communication Strategies: Evidence from the Updated Literature. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2018, 26, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buhmann, A.; Paßmann, J.; Fieseler, C. Managing Algorithmic Accountability: Balancing Reputational Concerns, Engagement Strategies, and the Potential of Rational Discourse. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 163, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirbabaie, M.; Stieglitz, S.; Marx, J. Negative Word of Mouth On Social Media: A Case Study of Deutsche Bahn’s Accountability Management. Schmalenbach J. Bus. Res. 2023, 75, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruda, D.; Ojo, A. Is It Too Late Now to Say We’re Sorry? Examining Anxiety Contagion and Crisis Communication Strategies Using Machine Learning. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0274539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salem, I.E.; Elkhwesky, Z.; Ramkissoon, H. A Content Analysis for Government’s and Hotels’ Response to COVID-19 Pandemic in Egypt. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2021, 22, 146735842110026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raithel, S.; Hock, S.J. The Crisis-Response Match: An Empirical Investigation. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021, 42, 170–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombs, W.T. The Value of Communication during a Crisis: Insights from Strategic Communication Research. Bus. Horiz. 2015, 58, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, M.; Liang, J.; Li, M.; Zhou, Z.; Zhu, M. TDIVis: Visual Analysis of Tourism Destination Images. Front. Inf. Technol. Electron. Eng. 2020, 21, 536–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steensen, S. Journalism’s Epistemic Crisis and Its Solution: Disinformation, Datafication and Source Criticism. Journalism 2018, 20, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arpan, L.M.; Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. Stealing Thunder: Analysis of the Effects of Proactive Disclosure of Crisis Information. Public Relat. Rev. 2005, 31, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claeys, A.-S.; Cauberghe, V. Crisis Response and Crisis Timing Strategies, Two Sides of the Same Coin. Public Relat. Rev. 2012, 38, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levy, D. The Communications Golden Hour; Public Safety Press: Sydney, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Y.; Yu, G.; Yan, X.; Yu, X. Quantifying and Analysing the Stages of Online Information Dissemination in Different Enterprise Emergencies: The Idea of System Cybernetics. J. Inf. Sci. 2020, 48, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, S. Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable; iUniverse: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Pearson, C.M.; Mitroff, I.I. From Crisis Prone to Crisis Prepared: A Framework for Crisis Management. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1993, 7, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, N.; Wei, J.; Zhu, W.; Bondar, A. The Quicker, the Better? The Antecedents and Consequences of Response Timing Strategy in the Aftermath of a Corporate Crisis. Balt. J. Manag. 2018, 14, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shao, W.; Moffett, J.W.; Quach, S.; Surachartkumtonkun, J.; Thaichon, P.; Weaven, S.K.; Palmatier, R.W. Toward a Theory of Corporate Apology: Mechanisms, Contingencies, and Strategies. Eur. J. Mark. 2022, 56, 3418–3452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, M.W.; Caillouet, R.H. Legitimation Endeavors: Impression Management Strategies Used by an Organization in Crisis. Commun. Monogr. 1994, 61, 44–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradford, J.L.; Garrett, D.E. The Effectiveness of Corporate Communicative Responses to Accusations of Unethical Behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 1995, 14, 875–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, B.K. Audience-Oriented Approach to Crisis Communication: A Study of Hong Kong Consumers’ Evaluation of an Organizational Crisis. Commun. Res. 2004, 31, 600–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilcox, D.L.; Reber, B.H.; Shin, J.-H.; Cameron, G.T. Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics; Pearson: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Ray, S.J. Strategic Communication in Crisis Management: Lessons from the Airline Industry; Quorum Books: Westport, CT, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Sturges, D.L. Communicating through Crisis: A Strategy for Organizational Survival. Manag. Commun. Q. 1994, 7, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lan, Y. New Dilemma that Social Media Poses for Crisis Communication. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Stud. 2022, 4, 268–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, R.; Tse, Y.K.; Liu, X. An Empirical Investigation of Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Product Recall and Crisis Response Strategy in Social Media. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2023, 17, 2204331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Meer, T.G.L.A.; Hameleers, M.; Kroon, A.C. Crafting Our Own Biased Media Diets: The Effects of Confirmation, Source, and Negativity Bias on Selective Attendance to Online News. Mass Commun. Soc. 2020, 23, 937–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krippendorff, K. Product semantics: A triangulation and four design theories. Prod. Semant. 1989, 89, 5–19. [Google Scholar]
No. | Classification of Crisis Response Strategies | Research Object | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Excuse, justification, ingratiation, intimidation, apologize, factual distortion | Enterprise | Allen et al. [38] |
2 | Denial, evasion of responsibility, reduction of event offensiveness, corrective action, mortification | Organization | Benoit [12] |
3 | Denial, diminishment, rebuilding, bolstering | Organization | Coombs [1] |
4 | Denial, evasion of responsibility, rationalization, concession | Enterprise | Bradford et al. [39] |
5 | Shifting of blame, minimization, no comment, apology, compensation, corrective action | Organization | Lee [40] |
6 * | Denial, evasion of responsibility, formal condolences, reduction of external attacks, acknowledgment/apology, corrective action, providing information and constructing new issues. | Enterprise | Huang et al. [14] |
7 | Denial, providing partial/inaccurate/delayed information, establishing open and accurate communication channels | Organization | Wilcox et al. [41] |
8 | Denial of responsibility, hedge responsibility, catering, apology/compensation, evoking sympathy | Organization | Ray [42] |
9 | Indicative information, adjusted information, internalized information | Organization | Sturges [43] |
10 | Foundation, denial, diminishment, rebuilding, reinforcement, and punishment | Organization | Jin et al. [20] |
Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max | |
---|---|---|---|---|
33,358.24 | 8924.83 | 161.00 | 67,431.00 | |
28.15 | 19.48 | 4.46 | 109.31 | |
17.30 | 19.79 | 0.00 | 109.30 | |
13.14 | 11.44 | 0.00 | 47.50 | |
2.08% | 401.00% | 0.01% | 33.66% | |
45.23 | 26.99 | 7.00 | 140.00 |
Lable | 0 | 1 |
---|---|---|
16 (17.02%) | 78 (82.98%) | |
46 (48.94%) | 48 (51.06%) | |
77 (81.91%) | 17 (18.09%) | |
83 (88.3%) | 11 (11.7%) | |
78 (82.98%) | 16 (17.02%) | |
78 (82.98%) | 16 (17.02%) | |
76 (80.85%) | 18 (19.15%) | |
78 (82.98%) | 16 (17.02%) | |
68 (72.34%) | 26 (27.66%) | |
55 (58.51%) | 39 (41.49%) |
Feature | Definition | Source |
---|---|---|
Overall volume value of the dissemination of crisis events | Zhiwei Crisis Insights, | |
Time constant of the dissemination evolution of crisis events | Calculated, | |
Decay coefficient of the dissemination of crisis events | Calculated, | |
Indicates whether the enterprise has an informal response | Encoding | |
Indicates whether the enterprise has an official statement | Encoding | |
Time of the first intervention of the enterprise | Zhiwei Crisis Insights, | |
Time stage of the first intervention of the enterprise | Calculated | |
Indicates whether the content of the informal response of the enterprise contains negative content | Encoding | |
Indicates whether the content of the informal response of the enterprise contains downplaying content | Encoding | |
Indicates whether the content of the informal response of the enterprise contains reshaping content | Encoding | |
Indicates whether the content of the informal response of the enterprise contains supportive content | Encoding | |
Indicates whether the official statement of the enterprise contains negative content | Encoding | |
Indicates whether the official statement of the enterprise contains downplaying content | Encoding | |
Indicates whether the official statement of the enterprise contains reshaping content | Encoding | |
Indicates whether the official statement of the enterprise contains supportive content | Encoding | |
Proportion of the reputation volume at the beginning of the event | Zhiwei Crisis Insights | |
Number of the key users | Top 20% on every platform, | |
Type of the crisis event | Zhiwei Crisis Insights Encoding | |
The platform where the crisis event first occurred | Zhiwei Crisis Insights | |
The time period when the crisis event first occurred | Zhiwei Crisis Insights |
0.112 | 0.122 | −0.039 | ||||
−0.273 | −0.904 ** | 0.083 | ||||
−0.058 | −0.416 | 0.116 | ||||
0.774 | −0.153 | 0.089 | ||||
Internal management | 0.021 | 0.030 | 0.122 | −0.329 | 0.447 | 0.443 |
Enterprise value | −0.404 | −0.295 | −0.461 | 0.254 | 0.583 | 0.545 |
Strategic actions | 0.369 | 0.389 | 0.159 | −0.929 | 0.192 | 0.197 |
Sensitive issues | 0.068 | 0.130 | −0.941 | −0.119 | 1.109 *** | 0.976 *** |
Marketing services | −0.242 | −0.059 | −0.150 | −0.407 | 0.261 | 0.387 |
Criminal offenses | −0.042 | 0.016 | −0.694 | 0.710 | 0.819 | 0.744 |
0.402 ** | 0.296 * | 0.500 | −0.070 | 0.364 | 0.322 | |
−0.035 | −0.030 | 0.085 | −0.111 | 0.304 | 0.440 * | |
8 am–1 pm | 0.047 | 0.058 | −0.222 | 0.127 | −0.161 | −0.336 |
1–7 pm | 0.101 | 0.004 | −0.276 | 0.562 | −0.507 * | −0.505 * |
7 pm–1 am | −0.048 | 0.024 | 0.526 | 0.045 | −0.415 | −0.336 |
−0.058 | −0.100 ** | −0.293 | −0.279 *** | 0.019 | 0.029 | |
0.458 *** | 0.564 *** | −0.260 *** | 1.104 *** | 1.577 *** | 1.575 *** | |
1.031 * | 1.053 * | 0.926 *** | −1.243 | 1.134 | 0.959 | |
78 | 94 | −1.340 | 94 | 78 | 94 | |
0.281 | 0.269 | 78 | 0.373 | 0.680 | 0.648 | |
0.121 | 0.117 | 0.353 | 0.242 | 0.609 | 0.575 | |
1.757 | 1.767 | 2.450 | 2.858 | 9.559 | 8.859 |
−0.234 | −0.138 | 0.134 | |
0.087 | −0.607 ** | 0.294 | |
Internal management | −0.031 | −0.471 | 0.384 |
Enterprise value | −0.155 | 0.009 | 0.569 |
Strategic actions | 0.264 | −1.025 * | 0.107 |
Sensitive issues | 0.054 | −0.143 | 0.951 *** |
Marketing services | −0.162 | −0.354 | 0.330 |
Criminal offenses | −0.388 | 0.649 | 0.551 |
0.213 | −0.081 | 0.283 | |
−0.043 | −0.253 | 0.394 * | |
8 am–1 pm | −0.052 | −0.059 | −0.299 |
1–7 pm | −0.052 | 0.455 | −0.483 * |
7 pm–1 am | −0.023 | −0.157 | −0.276 |
−0.116 *** | −0.262 *** | 0.025 | |
0.475 *** | 0.936 *** | 1.518 *** | |
1.388 *** | −0.681 | 1.055 * | |
94 | 94 | 94 | |
0.266 | 0.359 | 0.657 | |
0.125 | 0.236 | 0.591 | |
1.888 | 2.919 | 9.946 |
0.110 | −0.155 | 0.391 | |
−0.446 ** | −0.025 | 0.654 ** | |
0.038 | 0.130 | −0.346 | |
−0.140 | −0.018 | −0.449 * | |
0.231 | 0.660 * | −0.184 | |
0.110 | −0.072 | −0.073 | |
0.423 ** | −0.042 | −0.354 | |
−0.116 | −0.644 * | 0.587 ** | |
Internal management | −0.149 | −0.501 | 0.408 |
Enterprise value | −0.473 | −0.223 | 1.163 |
Strategic actions | 0.145 | −1.464 ** | 0.279 |
Sensitive issues | −0.135 | −0.062 | 1.238 *** |
Marketing services | −0.184 | −0.459 | 0.313 |
Criminal offenses | −0.653 | 0.830 | 0.684 |
0.320 * | −0.107 | 0.105 | |
−0.115 | −0.382 | 0.522 ** | |
8 am–1 pm | 0.024 | 0.100 | −0.504 ** |
1–7 pm | 0.037 | 0.632 | −0.659 *** |
7 pm–1 am | 0.006 | 0.080 | −0.470 * |
−0.114 *** | −0.251 *** | −0.005 | |
0.369 *** | 0.868 *** | 1.677 *** | |
1.649 *** | −0.696 | 0.650 | |
94 | 94 | 94 | |
0.345 | 0.395 | 0.722 | |
0.154 | 0.218 | 0.641 | |
1.808 | 2.237 | 8.903 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yu, Y.; Ye, W.; Zhang, K. Faster? Softer? Or More Formal? A Study on the Methods of Enterprises’ Crisis Response on Social Media. Mathematics 2025, 13, 1582. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13101582
Yu Y, Ye W, Zhang K. Faster? Softer? Or More Formal? A Study on the Methods of Enterprises’ Crisis Response on Social Media. Mathematics. 2025; 13(10):1582. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13101582
Chicago/Turabian StyleYu, Yongtian, Weiming Ye, and Kaihang Zhang. 2025. "Faster? Softer? Or More Formal? A Study on the Methods of Enterprises’ Crisis Response on Social Media" Mathematics 13, no. 10: 1582. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13101582
APA StyleYu, Y., Ye, W., & Zhang, K. (2025). Faster? Softer? Or More Formal? A Study on the Methods of Enterprises’ Crisis Response on Social Media. Mathematics, 13(10), 1582. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13101582