ROTTEN TO THE COREA CASE STUDY OF APPLEBEE’S PR MELTDOWN ON FACEBOOK

Desirae JohnsonKennesaw State University

Fall 2013

DISCUSSION OVERVIEW

Background on Applebee’s Case

Literature Review

Research Question

Method/Analysis

Conclusion

Timeline of Events

BACKGROUND ON APPLEBEE’S CASE

LITERATURE REVIEW

Bridgeman (2008) — Conversation, not statement

Tinker, Dumlao, & McLaughlin (2008) — Collaborate with public, lead conversations

Tinker, Fouse, & Currie (2009) —Cannot use new technology to do the same old thing.

Security Director’s Report (2009) —No formal policies on how to use digital media.

Coombs & Holladay (2012) —Ineffective response to “paracrisis” damages organization-stakeholder relationship.

Young & Flowers (2012) — Take time to craft responses.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Literature Review

• One thing is missing: Ethics.

RQ: Did Applebee’s demonstrate ethical behavior when responding to user complaints

on Facebook?

METHOD

CASE STUDY

The TARES Test: Five Principles for Ethical

Persuasion (Baker & Marthinson, 2001)

• Truthfulness of the Message

• Authenticity of the Persuader

• Respect for the Persuadee

• Equity of the Appeal

• Social Responsibility for the Common Good

Truthfulness of the Message

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

Truthfulness

of the Message

Authenticity of the Persuader

Are loyalties balanced in the situation?

Demonstrates loyalty to Applebee’s and not the stakeholders by omitting that the company itself violates policy.

ANALYSIS

ANALYSIS

RESPECT FOR THE PERSUADEE

ANALYSIS

RESPECT FOR THE PERSUADEE

ANALYSIS

Respect for the Persuadee

• Applebee’s did not demonstrate Respect for the Persuadee.

ANALYSIS

Equity of the Appeal

• Reflection and counterargument?• No. Applebee’s deleted Facebook

comments, and hid its original post.

• Fair?• No. Information was omitted, users banned,

and comments deleted.

• Do persuadees understand position?• No. The stated position (protecting customer

privacy) was not the position demonstrated by Applebee’s.

ANALYSIS

Social Responsibility for the Common Good

• Does this encourage public dialogue based on truthful information?

• Can competing ideas be fairly heard and considered by the public?

• Is sensitivity to wider public interest?

CONCLUSION

Truthfulness: Downplayed relevant evidence

Authenticity: Loyal to company, not stakeholders

Respect: Promoted raw self-interest by deleting comments

Equity: Lack of fairness and understanding; no

room for counterargument

Social responsibility: Discouraged dialogue of competing ideas

Questions?

THANK YOU