Moving beyond negative spillover: The positive consequences of an innocent brand's responses to another brand's crisis

Abstract

This study investigated (a) the negative spillover effects of brand's food‐safety crisis on an entire industry, dominant and nondominant innocent brands in the same product, and (b) the impacts of the innocent brand's response on the responded brand and the entire industry. The study conducted a 2 (market position: dominant vs. nondominant) × 2 (response: no‐response vs. response) between‐subjects design with one additional control group. The findings showed that the negative impact of the dominant brand's crisis spilled over only to nondominant brands, but the innocent brand's response served to overcome the negative effect by recovering the consumer's deteriorated beliefs about the brand and its products to the pre‐crisis level. However, the innocent brand's response did not significantly affect the industry.

Efficacy of response strategies in brand spillover crises: The roles of perceived attribute similarity, blame attribution and attitude towards response messages

“…Brand crises can generate adverse consequences that extend well beyond the directly involved brand. However, empirical research offering guidance on how a brand within the same industry responds to mitigate spillover effects remains scarce (e.g., Chang, 2023; Zhang & Lim, 2021). This study investigated the reason behind negative spillovers within the same industry, specifically focusing on attribute similarities between a brand facing a crisis and its competitors.…”

“…The accessibility‐diagnosticity framework (Feldman & Lynch, 1988) provides a theoretical account for negative spillover effects in brand crises (Chang, 2023; Maher & Singhapakdi, 2017; Zhang & Lim, 2021). This framework posits that evaluations of an object are influenced by both the accessibility of relevant information in memory and the diagnosticity of that information, meaning its perceived relevance in drawing inferences about the brand being evaluated (Maher & Singhapakdi, 2017).…”

“…Others are intentionally created through marketing or public relations activities, such as co‐branding, sponsorships, and celebrity endorsements. Negative spillover effects within an industry fall into the former category and are frequently studied in instances where adverse evaluations transfer from one brand to its competitors (Borah & Tellis, 2016; Chang, 2023; Zhang & Lim, 2021; Zou & Li, 2016).…”

“…Previous research (Borah & Tellis, 2016; Chang, 2023; Roehm & Tybout, 2006; Veil et al, 2016; Zhang & Lim, 2021) has proposed several response strategies that can be used by rival brands to mitigate negative spillover effects, such as strategic silence, denial, bolstering, and differentiation. Some literature (e.g., Borah & Tellis, 2016) suggests that rival brands in the same industry or category as a company facing a crisis might consider strategic silence.…”

What factors contribute to the formation of interorganizational collaboration networks: A longitudinal study in response to COVID‐19 emergency

“…Specifically, when we do not divide time slices (T), the emergency plan clarifies the division of responsibilities, which can significantly promote cooperation and address public crises (Wang & Mao, 2023).…”