4.3 Article

Social media users' crisis response: A lexical exploration of social media content in an international sport crisis

Journal

PUBLIC RELATIONS REVIEW
Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102057

Keywords

Crisis communication; Social media; Brand management; Reputation management

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study on the online sentiment of social media users regarding the 2018 Cricket Australia ball tampering crisis revealed that sentiment towards the brand of Cricket Australia shifted dramatically over time. Social media users' response progressed through four predominant stages: framing and identity development, sense making, accountability, and vigilant rebuilding. These findings emphasize the importance for brands in crisis situations to consider public response and social media user-generated content when formulating communication and recovery strategies.
The topic of crisis communication and brand reputation management has attracted substantial academic attention, however minimal critique has been directed to the online response of social media users, through usergenerated crisis-related communication. Drawing on crisis communication theory, we examine online sentiment of the social media public regarding the 2018 Cricket Australia ball tampering crisis over a 12-month period. It was found that sentiment towards the brand of Cricket Australia, shifted dramatically over this time. Social media users' response progressed through four predominant stages: (1) framing and identity development; (2) sense making; (3) accountability; and, (4) vigilant rebuilding. These stages are depicted in the Social Media Users' Crisis Response (SMUCR) framework presented in this paper. For brands involved in crisis situations, public response and social media user-generated content should be considered when formulating their communication and recovery strategies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available