Denial is a natural reaction to an accusation. Benoit states that there are two approaches to denial.
3.1.1 Denying an event occurred
A company can simply deny that the event ever occurred, deny that they were involved or even claim mistaken identity.
3.1.2 Blaming an event on someone else
Another possibility would be that the company can choose to shift the blame towards a different company or entity and claim they are responsible for the event. Often when denying the audience is left with the question of who was responsible for the event if it wasn’t the accused. Blaming a different company gives the audience a target for their negative feelings and it answers the question of “Who did it?”.
3.2 Evasion of responsibility
The goal of this …show more content…
With this tactic the accused can try and question the credibility of the accuser. If this works and the credibility is damaged, it will lead to their accusations being questioned.
3.3.6 Compensation
The final tactic is called “Compensation”. The accused offers compensation in the form of money or goods for example to the victims. As a result they hope that this eliminates the negative feelings towards the accused. This can be seen as a form of bribe as they try to pay off the victims so that they forgive them and their image gets restored again.
3.4 Mortification
The fourth category is “mortification” in which the accused takes responsibility for the event and issue an apology. If the accused is persuasive and believable the audience may choose to forgive the accused and the act he committed. 3.5 Corrective action
The final category is called “Corrective action”. It is a strategy in which the accused will try and restore his image by promising corrective actions. The accuser can promise to restore things to the way they were before and/or make changes to prevent such an event from ever happening again in the future, reassuring the audience this is a one-time
3.1.1 Denying an event occurred
A company can simply deny that the event ever occurred, deny that they were involved or even claim mistaken identity.
3.1.2 Blaming an event on someone else
Another possibility would be that the company can choose to shift the blame towards a different company or entity and claim they are responsible for the event. Often when denying the audience is left with the question of who was responsible for the event if it wasn’t the accused. Blaming a different company gives the audience a target for their negative feelings and it answers the question of “Who did it?”.
3.2 Evasion of responsibility
The goal of this …show more content…
With this tactic the accused can try and question the credibility of the accuser. If this works and the credibility is damaged, it will lead to their accusations being questioned.
3.3.6 Compensation
The final tactic is called “Compensation”. The accused offers compensation in the form of money or goods for example to the victims. As a result they hope that this eliminates the negative feelings towards the accused. This can be seen as a form of bribe as they try to pay off the victims so that they forgive them and their image gets restored again.
3.4 Mortification
The fourth category is “mortification” in which the accused takes responsibility for the event and issue an apology. If the accused is persuasive and believable the audience may choose to forgive the accused and the act he committed. 3.5 Corrective action
The final category is called “Corrective action”. It is a strategy in which the accused will try and restore his image by promising corrective actions. The accuser can promise to restore things to the way they were before and/or make changes to prevent such an event from ever happening again in the future, reassuring the audience this is a one-time