Social Media Assignment

R

L S A

a

A R R A

K S C E E A

1

p m m

c f b b s o

d a m

h

0

Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 97–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

eputations at risk: Engagement during social media crises�

arissa Ott 1, Petra Theunissen ∗

chool of Communication Studies, Faculty of Design & Creative Technologies, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, uckland 1142, New Zealand

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history: eceived 21 May 2014 eceived in revised form 5 September 2014 ccepted 30 October 2014

eywords: ocial media risis communication ngagement motion uthenticity

a b s t r a c t

Research into social media and social networking sites has focused on its advantages for organization–public relationships. Potential risks to corporate reputation have been largely glossed over, but inappropriate strategies can create or fuel social media crises. This arti- cle is based on an in-depth analysis of three multinational profit-making organizations experiencing social media crises after 2010. It was found that each organization employed different engagement strategies with varied outcomes. Authenticity of voice and trans- parency were crucial factors for success, whereas engaging indiscriminately with emotional individuals could potentially escalate an issue. The article offers strategies for engagement during social media crises.

© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

As people spend more time on the Internet, managing reputation on social media becomes increasingly important for ublic relations. The latest figures show that Internet users spend most of their time on social networks, and half of all social edia users said that at least once a month they had expressed complaints or concerns about brands or services on social edia (Nielsen, 2012). Reputations are however notoriously difficult to manage because they comprise “soft” variables like perceptions of

redibility, reliability, accountability, trustworthiness and competence (Helm, Liehr-Gobbers, & Storck, 2011). Online, these actors experience a new level of scrutiny: not only do users expect organizations to communicate honestly and openly, ut they have the means to search and uncover facts that organizations would prefer to hide (Greyser, 2009). It is also ecoming increasingly hard to recover from crises of reputation (Gaines-Ross, 2008; Griffin, 2008; Phillips & Young, 2009). A eemingly innocuous event can unleash a storm of negativity (Wüst & Kreutzer, 2012), and such negativity spreads directly n corporate accounts that were established for promotional purposes.

When confronted with social media risks, organizations generally follow one of four strategies: absence, presence, atten-

ance and omnipresence (Aula, 2010). While the first three span from complete absence on social media to awareness nd non-participative listening, the last strategy, omnipresence, comprises dialogic interaction. This is the strategy recom- ended for successful online reputation management (Aula, 2010), building on the idea that social media have necessitated

� Note: All material for the case studies can be publicly accessed on http://storify.com/LarissaOtt1/when-ngos-take-the-lead-facebook-unfriends-coal, ttp://storify.com/LarissaOtt1/throwing-stones-in-a-glass-house-the-case-of-apple and http://storify.com/LarissaOtt1/jetstar. ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 21 183 7080.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Ott), [email protected] (P. Theunissen). 1 Present address: Erlkönig GmbH, Peter-Hurst-Str. 1b, D-38444 Wolfsburg, Germany. Tel.: +49 174 1936540.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.015 363-8111/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

98 L. Ott, P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 97–102

a shift from monologue to dialogue (Mersham, Theunissen, & Peart, 2009). The shift has heralded in an era of public relations characterized by participation and transparency (Solis & Breakenridge, 2009).

Social media have also altered the parameters of crises through increased pace, scope and impact (Bridgeman, 2008), enabling them to quickly become viral. The most viral emotion on the Internet is anger (Berger & Milkman, 2009; Fan, Zhao, Chen, & Xu, 2013) which is less likely to subside because of the “long tail” effect (cf. Phillips & Young, 2009).

To illustrate the impact of negative emotion, practitioners Graf and Schwede (2012) developed what they colloquially called a “shitstorm” social media scale using the Beaufort storm scale. The scale allows practitioners to assess the seriousness of the situation by evaluating its emotional impact: the greater the emotional impact, the higher the risk.

This article discusses research findings into social media crises, answering three key questions:

RQ1 How do social media contribute to the development of reputational crises? RQ2 How does the risk of social media crises impact on organizations? RQ3 How can they react to social media crises (i.e. communication strategies)?

First the research method is presented, followed by an analysis of three case studies before concluding with practical suggestions for managing social media crises.

2. Research method and data collection

This research used a multiple case study approach. Although case studies are often perceived to provide insufficient sci- entific rigor because of the alleged lack of generalizability (Ruddin, 2006), this research follows Flyvbjerg’s (2006) argument that it is possible to generalize from a single case—as long as the case is carefully chosen. A case study is a “detailed exami- nation of a single example” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 220), and is an empirical enquiry particularly useful in answering “how” or “why” research questions (Yin, 2009). It allows for “naturalistic generalization” where the responsibility for generalization is shifted to the readers, ergo what they make of the findings (Stake & Trumbull, 1982). In particular, the value of a case study lies in its tendency towards falsification and is thus best suited to test theories (Eckstein, 2000; Flyvbjerg, 2006; Walton, 1992). If one detail does not fit with the general proposition, the theory loses its validity. By the same logic, multiple case studies are more likely to produce reliable and generalizable data, depending on the context of the research (Ruddin, 2006; Yin, 2009).

To ensure that the chosen method met the standards of good social science research and in response to Cutler’s (2004) critique that most researchers of crisis communication fail to explain their methodological approach, Coombs’ (2007) Situ- ational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) was applied. SCCT highlights the importance of negative emotions in crisis situations. It also shares the belief with Image Restoration Theory that the right communication protects against further negative reactions to a crisis (Coombs, 2007), and offers a framework to assess the reputational threat based on different crisis clusters and stakeholders’ perceptions. Thus, it provides guidelines for crisis communication while taking into account the organization’s situation and publics’ emotions.

Three multinational profit-making organizations that had experienced a social media crisis were selected. The aim was to identify similarities in seemingly distinct patterns of interaction. The first case study involved Greenpeace’s online attack on Facebook while the second case study investigated the crisis that followed when restaurant chain Applebee’s fired a waitress. The third case study involved the low-budget airline Jetstar addressing poor service and an online attack on their Facebook account.

Sources were found by conducting a Google search using relevant search terms (e.g. “unfriend coal” for the Greenpeace campaign). On Facebook and Twitter, all posts were directly available on the organization’s timeline. The data had to be accessed manually because the application programming interface (API) of Facebook and Twitter allowed key word searches only for the last seven days. While the duration of the “unfriend coal” campaign meant that the contents of the Facebook and Twitter pages had to be scanned for the whole twenty months (February 2010–October 2011), the focus for Jetstar could be narrowed to between October and December 2012, and for Applebee’s from the 30 January 2013 to April 2013.

The information analyzed was public, although an issue with this form of data collection is that organizations can delete or hide material previously posted in an attempt to influence public opinion or hide unsuccessful communication strategies. Thus, some data may not have been accessed. A solution was to watch out for user comments and blog sites that pointed towards such behavior.

Due to the nature of social media, information is repeated or republished resulting in material being found through aggregated data. Different sources such as blog posts, websites and posts on Facebook or Twitter were used to find the necessary information. The website StorifyTM served as a curation tool and a valuable case study database where users had collected screenshots of online conversations. Text was added to connect and explain the material.

In analyzing the data, the focus rested on how the crises emerged, how each organization responded, and whether the strategies proved to be successful. Subsequent comparison across cases showed similarities and differences, contributing to a better understanding of social media crises. Explanation building was used to elucidate why certain approaches were successful and others not.

3

3

c f e b p v f p p p c

e t r G a

I d c

f t a s t

3

U “ t b s t h t h

s t f a (

f

m t e p

L. Ott, P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 97–102 99

. Results

.1. Facebook and Greenpeace

From February 2010 to October 2011, the activist organization Greenpeace targeted Facebook as part of the “Unfriend oal” campaign that aimed to increase the use of renewable energies in the IT industry. At the time, upcoming regulations or carbon emissions in the USA made it more likely that data centers would have to consider future energy sources and nergy efficiency. In communicating about their new data centers, Facebook focused on energy efficiency (Heiliger, 2010) ut chose an energy provider that relied mainly on coal (Miller, 2010). In response, Greenpeace attacked Facebook via blog osts, user messages on their Facebook pages and direct messages to Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook itself had arious channels through which it could respond to its critics, including its main page, its blog and dedicated Facebook pages or the two new data centers. In general, however, the posting policy on these pages was (and is) restricted. Direct public osting was blocked and only commenting was enabled. On the Facebook blog, users were only able to like or share the blog ost which made direct feedback impossible. Thus, Facebook’s general communication strategy was to use blogs and longer osts for one-way communication. This approach is in contrast to the understood purpose of a blog as a means for two-way ommunication and stakeholder engagement (cf. Solis & Breakenridge, 2009).

During the crisis, Facebook did not engage with its publics via social networking sites but rather focused its communication fforts on Greenpeace as the cause of the attack through publishing occasional statements. The organization posted replies in he comment section of two blog posts that had started the discussion (Schnitt, 2010; Weinstein, 2010), and Mark Zuckerberg eplied to one Facebook message of a Greenpeace supporter (Zuckerberg, September 16, 2010) which then went viral via reenpeace’s Twitter account. The statements employed traditional crisis response strategies such as deny and justification, ttacking the accuser and persuasion (cf. Coombs, 2007).

Facebook did not engage in the discussion following these posts and thus was successful in not fuelling further negativity. nstead they indirectly countered Greenpeace’s efforts with regular posts about energy efficiency on their pages and a edicated “Green” page. While the majority of user comments on these platforms referred to Greenpeace’s “Unfriend coal” ampaign, Facebook never replied to these in the comment section.

However, despite Facebook’s efforts, Greenpeace’s campaign endured. In response, Facebook took corrective action by ocusing on renewable energy sources when planning their new data center in Sweden (Green on Facebook, 2011a). Even- ually, Facebook collaborated with Greenpeace (Green on Facebook, 2011b) and increased its transparency by publishing

website about its sustainability strategy (Facebook, 2012), sharing its carbon footprint and energy mix. This openness eemed to protect Facebook from further criticism, despite Facebook hinting that its growth might impact negatively on heir carbon footprint.

.2. Applebee’s

Another typical social media crisis was that of Applebee’s. In January 2013, a patron at a local Applebee’s franchise in the SA crossed out the mandatory gratuity of 18% that applied to parties larger than eight persons and wrote on the receipt:

I give God 10%, why do you get 18?” (Weber, 2013). A co-worker of the affected waitress posted the receipt online with he patron’s name visible. Although she later defended her actions stating that she had believed the patron’s signature to e illegible (Morran, 2013), she was fired the next day for violating Applebee’s privacy policy. The news of her sacking pread rapidly. Angry customers and online users attacked Applebee’s on its Facebook and Twitter accounts, arguing that he crime did not justify the punishment. The issue was made worse when users discovered that the franchise themselves ad previously posted a picture on Facebook with a customer’s signature visible, thus violating the same policy for which he waitress was fired. When users pointed this out to Applebee’s, the photo was quickly deleted, leading to accusations of ypocrisy.

Applebee’s reacted to the criticism by publishing a statement on Facebook that it valued customers’ privacy. This post oon amassed more than 10,000 comments. However, negative comments were later hidden from Applebee’s Facebook imeline and only reinstated after the organization was accused of employing censorship (Stollar, 2013). Another post that ollowed up on the crisis was published among the comments but was soon buried under negativity. It was then re-posted s a separate piece. Applebee’s self-proclaimed communication strategy was one of two-way communication and dialogue Weisbaum, 2013) and yet its spokesperson Dan Smith described the organization’s response strategy as:

(Explaining) the situation in as clear terms as possible [. . .] and we fully understand that some people might not agree with our position. Our simple goal here is to provide the public with facts. (Bhasin, 2013)

It was evident that their initial response strategy was not only reactive by informing and adjusting information, but ollowed a traditional understanding of crisis communication: provide the facts clearly, accurately and persistently.

What followed next was what Dan Smith described as “the engagement piece” (Bhasin, 2013): attempting to answer as

any people as possible. An analysis of the responses showed that Applebee’s did not engage in dialogue, but rather tried

o persuade users to agree with their point of view. Worse, Applebee’s social media team relied on copying and pasting the ssential parts of the corporate statement which only enraged online users further and prompted them to also copy and aste their denunciatory posts.

100 L. Ott, P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 97–102

Coombs’ (2007) Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) fitted this case well. According to SCCT, a higher crisis responsibility and a negative history prior to the crisis lead to higher emotional involvement and feelings of anger and schadenfreude, which were clearly expressed in the online comments. In addition, SCCT links negative emotions and perceived crisis responsibility with behavioral intentions, which could be found in the calls for boycott that emerged during the crisis.

The attacks only receded after Applebee’s stopped discussions with individual users and refrained from commenting on the situation. It was evident that the franchise’s inability to recognize the seriousness of the initial issue and a flawed understanding of dialogue fanned the crisis.

3.3. Jetstar

Social networking sites establish a direct relationship between organizations and their customers, which was evident in the case of the low-budget airline, Jetstar. If customers experience problems like delayed or cancelled flights or lost baggage, they can complain on the organization’s social media pages. Jetstar’s former social media manager Andrew Mathwin said they handled about 10,000 requests per month and up to 1000 enquiries per day in the case of a crisis (iGo2 Group, 2011). Mathwin added that they took special care to engage only in conversations when invited to do so or if they could be of help.

Because of the nature of the industry and Jetstar’s reputation as a cost-cutting service provider, it had to manage multiple crises. One of these was the creation of a fake Jetstar Facebook account in November 2012 by an imposter who replied rudely to customer enquiries (cf. Starke, 2012). Jetstar responded by publishing a general apology and contacting the affected customers. Mostly, users seemed amused, and customers who had experienced problems were grateful for Jetstar’s quick response.

During the same period, the airline also had to respond to the cancellation of several Christmas flights from Australia to New Zealand, which forced customers to rebook with more expensive airlines or abandon their trips (cf. Garrett-Walker, 2012). Rather than respond publicly on its Facebook wall, Jetstar focused on replying to all affected passengers personally, and to moving the communication from the page to private email or call center interaction. Unlike Facebook the airline had (and still has) an open posting policy that allowed users to post directly. Posts from angry users who were not affected by the flight cancellations were ignored, but not deleted. The same strategy was employed on Twitter.

Applying SCCT to this case, it was evident that Jetstar employed accommodative crisis response strategies (Coombs, 2007) such as apologizing and compensating. Additionally, their community managers identified themselves with real names, and engaged in personal, less formal conversations, which reduced attacks as it provided a “human face.” By engaging in two- way communication with relevant customers in good time, Jetstar was able to move the conversation away from the social media platforms and only used the latter to identify affected customers. These customers were offered refunds, alternative flights or other solutions. This particular issue ebbed away after the 28 November 2012, but it did not resolve the recurring problems of customer service and the airline’s general poor reputation (Bradley, 2013).

4. Discussion

While dialogue is often recommended and almost all organizations claim to use it, the reality during social media crisis communication differs significantly. In the cases highlighted here, organizations often employed tactics of negotiation and persuasion combined with traditional crisis response strategies like denial and justification rather than engaging in genuine dialogue as outlined by Theunissen and Wan Noordin (2012).

It was evident that to whom and when the organization responded had a major impact on how the crisis evolved. The example of Applebee’s demonstrated that replying directly and mechanically to individuals and critics can fuel crises. Facebook, on the other hand, did not engage with its critics and although Greenpeace’s campaign endured, Facebook faced much less criticism and fewer emotional attacks than Applebee’s. Jetstar followed a more strategic and selective approach whereby they ignored angry users who were not directly affected by the issue, but initiated conversations with customers who needed help. This approach allowed the issue to be managed and prevented it from escalating.

Although it is part of dialogue to address the public as equals (Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001) most organizations did not appear ready for this kind of openness. Generally organizations reverted to persuasion when faced with a crisis situation. McAllister’s (2012) analysis of the websites and social media pages of the world’s top 100 universities showed that this phenomenon spans all kinds of institutions and organizations.

The three case studies discussed highlight an apparent gap between what public relations practitioners state should be happening in relationship building and what is happening. This appears to stem from a misperception that interactivity equals dialogue. Although interacting with stakeholders holds the potential for dialogue, these case studies show that the latter does not automatically imply the former. More applicable are the notions of interactivity and responsiveness (cf. Avidar, 2013). A response does not need to be interactive, i.e. encourage further conversation by adding information or posing questions, but it should be responsive. Public relations practitioners should understand the differences between interactivity, responsiveness and dialogue so that they can make a strategic decision when (and if) to engage publics.

Applebee’s attempt to respond to each online user was not only impractical, but unintentionally fuelled the crisis by offering further fodder for disapproval. For instance, users criticized the wording of statements and felt affronted by some corporate replies. Engaging in dialogue with angry online users who do not want to hear the organization’s view is unlikely to resolve a crisis.

b n o w s o

a b

f i i p a a

5

t

s c

p d a

2 w s i

R

A

A

B

B

B

B

C

C E

F F

F G G

G

G G G

G

L. Ott, P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 97–102 101

Officially worded statements are not always well received online and are often perceived as “talking down.” The Apple- ee’s case study showed that listing “the facts” in an official statement is not an effective form of information-sharing. Social etworking sites are similar to other social settings, and to be authentic, communication should match the setting and the rganization’s usual style. While official statements show that the organization takes the situation seriously, interpersonal ays of communication are more appropriate. In Jetstar’s case individual engagement also became necessary because it

howed concern for the individual. Thus, managing online crisis communication moves from the traditional view that a CEO r high-ranking person in the organization must act as spokesperson (cf. Gaines-Ross, 2008).

Highly accommodative strategies appear to be more successful than denial or diminishing strategies—especially if they re combined with actions that demonstrate the organization is listening to its critics. It is also important to react to the crisis y posting status updates online and to engage with affected individuals. This will show commitment and transparency.

Genuine dialogue is not easily achieved during a social media crisis. Nevertheless, organizations should provide forums or discussion. Controlling the discussion to the extent that offensive and abusive content will be deleted is acceptable only f there is a clear policy. By relinquishing some control, organizations can allow loyal fans and supporters to defend them n more authentic ways than corporate statements can. In contrast, attempts to manage reputation by deleting unfavorable osts or blocking critics are likely to deteriorate trust and ignite anger. Such actions not only evoke notions of censorship nd raise suspicions that the organization has something to hide, but prevent any chance of learning the motives behind the ttacks.

. Conclusion

The analysis of the three case studies showed effective and non-effective approaches to social media crises and compared he response strategies with those suggested by the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (Coombs, 2007).

A dialogical approach is only effective if the users are affected by the crisis. If they are not, attempting to engage as many takeholders as possible is likely to fuel anger. Risk to reputation is further heightened if organizations and public relations onfuse dialogue with persuasion.

The cases discussed showed that public Facebook and Twitter sites offered forums for angry online users to share their oints of views and vent their feelings. Anger spreads fast on these platforms and because organizations are perceived as isembodied entities, they are more likely to become targets. Reputational risk is further increased because programming lgorithms favor posts with a high activity regardless whether such activity is positive or negative.

Thus, although social networking sites have been recognized as useful channels for relationship management (e.g. Grunig, 009; Taylor et al., 2001), inappropriate or conventional strategies can ignite social media crises. Not only are organizations ell advised to employ a coherent crisis communication strategy and provide relevant information on their social networking

ites, but public relations practitioners need to understand the underlying principles of relationship-building and dialogue n order to apply them effectively during a social media crisis.

eferences

ula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy & Leadership, 38(6), 43–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ 10878571011088069

vidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.05.004

erger, J. A., & Milkman, K. L. (2009). What makes online content viral? USA: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.1528077

hasin, K. (2013, February 5). Applebee’s explains its strategy for dealing with the non-tipping pastor receipt debacle. Business Insider Australia. Retrieved from http://au.businessinsider.com/applebees-receipt-strategy-2013-2

radley, G. (2013, April 5). Jetstar working on plan to change tarnished image. The New Zealand Herald Online. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ business/news/article.cfm?c id=3&objectid=10875477

ridgeman, R. (2008). Crisis communication and the net: Is it just about responding faster. . . or do we need to learn a new game? In P. F. Anthonissen (Ed.), Crisis communication: Practical PR strategies for reputation management and organization survival (pp. 169–177). Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

oombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

utler, A. (2004). Methodological failure: The use of case study method by public relations researchers. Public Relations Review, 30(3), 365–375. ckstein, H. (2000). The case study and theory in political science. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method (pp. 119–164). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. acebook. (2012). Sustainability. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/sustainability.aspx an, R., Zhao, J., Chen, Y., & Xu, K. (2013). Anger is more influential than joy: Sentiment correlation in Weibo. China: Beihang University. Retrieved from

http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.2402 lyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 aines-Ross, L. (2008). Corporate reputation: 12 steps to safeguarding and recovering reputation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. arrett-Walker, H. (2012, November 26). Jetstar flyers outraged at Christmas cancellations. The New Zealand Herald Online. Retrieved from

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c id=1&objectid=10849929 raf, D., & Schwede, B. (2012, April 24). Shitstorm-Skala: Wetterbericht für Social Media. Retrieved from http://www.feinheit.ch/blog/2012/04/24/

shitstorm-skala/

reen on Facebook. (2011, October 27). Lulea Data Center. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/green/posts/298392286855458 reen on Facebook. (2011, December 15). Facebook commits to clean energy future. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/green/posts/236221773113928 reyser, S. A. (2009). Corporate brand reputation and brand crisis management. Management Decision, 47(4), 590–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/

00251740910959431 riffin, A. (2008). New strategies for reputation management: Gaining control of issues, crises & corporate social responsibility. Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

102 L. Ott, P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review 41 (2015) 97–102

Grunig, J. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism Online PR Journal, 6(2). Retrieved from http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/ prism on-line journ.html

Heiliger, J. (2010, January 21). Breaking ground on our first custom data center. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blog.facebook.com/ blog.php?post=262655797130

Helm, S., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Storck, C. (2011). Reputation management. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. iGo2 Group. (2011, August 31). Social business insights with Jetstar Airways [Blog interview]. North Sydney, Australia: iGo2 Group. Retrieved from

http://igo2group.com/blog/social-business-insights-with-jetstar-airways/ McAllister, S. M. (2012). How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review, 38, 319–327.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.010 Mersham, G. M., Theunissen, P., & Peart, J. G. M. (2009). Public relations and communication management: An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective. North Shore,

NZ: Pearson. Miller, R. (2010, February 2). Facebook’s green data center, powered by coal? Retrieved from http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/02/02/

facebooks-green-data-center-powered-by-coal/ Morran, C. (2013, January 31). Waitress who posted no-tip receipt from “pastor” customer fired from job. In Consumerist. Retrieved from

http://consumerist.com/2013/01/31/waitress-who-posted-no-tip-receipt-from-pastor-customer-fired-from-job/ Nielsen. (2012). State of the Media: Social Media Report 2012. USA: Nielsen. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/2012/ Phillips, D., & Young, P. (2009). Online public relations: A practical guide to developing an online strategy in the world of social media. Philadelphia: Kogan Page

Ltd. Ruddin, L. P. (2006). You can generalize stupid! Social scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg, and case study methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(4), 797–812.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800406288622 Schnitt, B. (2010, September 1). Response by Facebook to Greenpeace (comment section) [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.org/

international/en/news/Blogs/Cool-IT/executive-director-of-greenpeace-to-ceo-of-fa/blog/26324/-comments-holder Solis, B., & Breakenridge, D. (2009). Putting the public back in public relations: How social media is reinventing the aging business of PR. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

FT Press. Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. J. (1982). Naturalistic generalization. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7, 1–12. Starke, P. (2012, November 28). Outrage over fake Jetstar Facebook page. News Limited Network. Retrieved from http://www.news.com.au/technology/

outrage-over-fake-jetstar-facebook-page/story-e6frfro0-1226525997260 Stollar, R. L. (2013, February 2). Applebee’s overnight social media meltdown: A photo essay. Retrieved from http://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2013/

02/02/applebees-overnight-social-media-meltdown-a-photo-essay/ Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263–284. Theunissen, P., & Wan Noordin, W. N. (2012). Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38, 5–13.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.006 Walton, J. (1992). Making the theoretical case. In H. S. Becker, & C. Ragin (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 121–137).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weber, K. (2013, February 1). Applebee’s waitress fired for posting pastor’s no-tip receipt on Reddit. Christian Post. Retrieved from http://www.christianpost.

com/news/applebees-waitress-fired-for-posting-pastors-no-tip-receipt-on-reddit-89270/ Weinstein, L. (2010, February 15). Facebook’s response to Data Center Knowledge. [Online comment]. Retrieved from http://www.datacenterknowledge.

com/archives/2010/02/02/facebooks-green-data-center-powered-by-coal/

Weisbaum, H. (2013, February 5). Applebee’s social media faux pas a ‘learning experience’. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/business/

applebees-social-media-faux-pas-learning-experience-1B8251556 Wüst, C., & Kreutzer, R. T. (2012). Corporate reputation management: Wirksame Strategien für den Unternehmenserfolg. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Zuckerberg, M. (2010, September 16). Data center response. Facebook.