Public Relations Crises in the Internet Era

In the era before the internet or when the internet was not widely accessible, the “golden rules” of crisis public relations were clear: take a firm stand and dare to take responsibility, prioritize protecting the public with a resolute attitude, and maintain sincerity and proactive communication with the media. However, in the internet era, all of this seems to have changed.

I. Insights from Several Cases

When talking about crisis public relations, people often mention Johnson & Johnson. In 1982, its flagship product, Tylenol capsules, were tampered with and poisoned, causing seven deaths. Faced with this sudden disaster, the firm firmly rejected all “naive advice” and acted decisively at the critical moment. They closely cooperated with official investigations; executives proactively contacted the media and issued warnings against using any Tylenol products; suspended production, halted relevant advertisements and promotions, and conducted a nationwide recall… A well-known business magazine commented at the time: “For a company, what could be more terrifying than police officers patrolling the streets with loudspeakers warning that buying its products is equivalent to suicide?” Yet by the end of 1984, Tylenol sales had recovered to 96% of their pre-crisis level. Johnson & Johnson set a classic successful example in crisis public relations.

In 2000, Contac capsules also faced a crisis. On December 18, China’s State Drug Administration announced the suspension of 16 medicines containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA). Having entered the Chinese market for 12 years, Contac enjoyed extremely high popularity in the cold medicine sector. Media rushed to report the news, and distributors called one after another to make inquiries… On the very day, SmithKline Beecham established a crisis management team, and major media covered the company’s staff meeting prominently the next day. On the 16th, it issued “A Letter to Hospitals” and “A Letter to Consumers”, with dozens of trained staff answering public calls. On the 30th, a media symposium was held, focusing on conveying its attitude — firm support for the decisions of competent authorities, and always putting consumer interests and public health first… The incident subsided quickly.

Since the beginning of this century, with the deep integration of the internet into daily life and the impact of social transformation, corporate crises have become a “normal state”. In February 2010, Guizhentang, a company integrating bear breeding, R&D, production and sales of bear bile products, sparked intense controversy over “live bear bile extraction” due to its planned IPO. Animal protection groups joined forces with celebrities to call for opposing the company’s listing. The China Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine held a media briefing in an attempt to “clarify” for Guizhentang, but only made things more confusing. On the 30th, Guizhentang issued an invitation for a “Bear Breeding Base Open Day” through its official website, followed by a high-profile expert Q&A session, yet the storm still failed to calm down. In March 2016, the usually stable drinking water market erupted with Nongfu Spring’s “Standard Gate” incident.

The incident originated from a consumer complaint about finding an unknown black substance in an unopened bottle. The company replied on Weibo that it was precipitation of natural mineral elements, and testing by a third-party authority met national standards with no safety risks. On the 20th, another website revealed: “Waste surrounds Nongfu Spring’s Danjiangkou water source, and water quality is worrying”… On April 13, the *Beijing Times* stepped in, and the two sides then clashed repeatedly, causing the incident to continue escalating. On May 6, Nongfu Spring held a press conference in Beijing to prove its innocence and filed a lawsuit against the newspaper claiming damages. On December 4, Nongfu Spring even went to Beijing to report the *Beijing Times*, accusing it of continuously fabricating facts and publishing false reports, raising the claim amount from 70 million to 200 million yuan…

Frankly speaking, these crises involved being targeted, wrongfully blamed, or caught in the crossfire — sometimes all at once, leaving people sighing helplessly. Yet it can be observed that in the era before the internet or when the internet was not widely accessible, the “golden rules” of crisis public relations were clear: take a firm stand and dare to take responsibility, prioritize protecting the public with a resolute attitude, and maintain sincerity and proactive communication with the media. However, in the internet era, all of this seems to have changed.

II. Challenges in the Internet Era

In the internet era, people’s work and daily life have become fully connected, interactive and integrated through the web. How has this affected crisis public relations?

(I) Changes in Crisis Communication Models

For a long time, traditional media have been the main battlefield for public relations communication and crisis management. “We are the media, and we have always tried to be the watchmen of society.” Naturally, what you conveyed was essentially what reached the audience through the media, despite some “losses” in transmission. Today, the impact of the internet and changes in the media ecosystem have not only reduced the circulation of traditional media but also weakened their credibility. Traditional media have increasingly been challenged by online platforms and public voices, frequently facing doubts over “preconceived positions” and “targeted exposures”. For the public, who to listen to and whether to believe; for the parties involved, who to speak for them and whether the voice is authoritative… traditional media are no longer the only or optimal choice.

(II) Challenges from the Public Environment

In the internet era, the public is no longer a passive audience, but also mutual sources of information, communicators and channels. Their formation is dynamic, gathering or differentiating based on interests and needs. Crisis public relations increasingly has to face the following groups:

1. “Closed-loop” publics. They only believe in themselves and accept information from like-minded groups, forming a communication “closed loop” that is difficult to break through. In other words, they refuse to communicate and refuse to listen to you. For example, in some doctor-patient crises involving medical troublemakers, their direct goal is to “make a big scene”.

2. “Skeptical” publics. No matter how you communicate, their first thought is “are you telling the truth”. When one round of doubts is resolved, another arises. Notably, due to fragmented information, diversified interests and digitized relationships, it is difficult to form a universally recognized “authoritative voice” in public opinion, and more people will be unsure “who to believe”.

3. “Misunderstanding” publics. Related to the fragmentation of information, they often take their own interpretations and guesses as “your meaning” and choose their behavioral tendencies accordingly.

When facing “closed-loop” publics, they can sometimes be regarded as marginal groups. We may consider targeting the larger general public, especially “skeptical” publics, as the primary audience. “Skeptical” publics are essentially “independent individuals” and often key targets to win over in crisis response. For “misunderstanding” publics, the key is to make them truly understand you.

---