【正文】 n some 45,000 cases (Boston Globe, November 9, 2021) Merck39。s president attacked President Bush at the UN (CITGO39。s marketplace situation, . market share or corporate favourability (prior to crisis). The weaker the situation, the more dangerous the problem. o Brand strengths/weaknesses. The more differentiated (vs other entities), the better it is for the affected pany, unless a key differentiation is the subject at issue (see “integrity of athletic petition” below). o Essence of the brand39。 both lost their ability to be seen by their people as “a symbol of nationhood,” central to the “monarchic corporate brand” (Balmer et al., 2021). 9. Controversial ownership – Venezuela and CITGO in the USA (vigorously antiUS Venezuelan president). Assessing the seriousness of the situation What made some of these crises lifethreatening to the anisations involved was that they affected what I term “the essence of the brand”, . the distinctive attribute/characteristic most closely associated with the brand39。s McNeil Laboratories Unit). Thus these incidents provide a rich source of insight into the corporate brand. They illustrate a key dimension of corporatelevel marketing. “Can we as an institution, have meaningful, positive and profitable bilateral ongoing relationships with customers and other stakeholder groups and munities?”. That was a central question of an anisation39。J39。s (fast food chain) founder and TV spokesperson Dave Thomas, the “face of the brand”. 8. Loss of public support – Louis XVI of France (guillotined and monarchy fell), Edward VIII of England (forced to abdicate the British throne)。s reputation: 1. The brand elements: o Brand39。 this can be examined at the planning stage as “l(fā)ikely” impact. 4. Results (after initiatives and/or passage of time): o Effectiveness of initiatives in terms of recovery/relaunch, restoring brand meaning, and favourability or market share. Action in brand reputational crises What can and should panies/anisations do when threatened by brand crises? Where does munications fit in? My principal remendation relates to situations of “bad news about the pany and the news is really true”. In the face of crisis, especially when it is rooted in a problem that is or will bee visible, I believe an anisation should admit the truth, even if embarrassing. Also, it should forthrightly try to address the problem, even if it involves changing corporate behaviour. And it should support the initiative with credible munications. These are the best (but still bumpy) roads to possible brand rehabilitation or rescue.. Communications alone cannot do the job Substance – . behaviour – is central (. the quick recall of Tylenol from distribution) to an effective defensive program. An allied munications effort can be important and helpful. However, the message must avoid serving as a “reminder campaign”, especially if the underlying problem/allegation is not widely known by relevant publics. Credible munications were an issue for Walmart in its early 2021 corporate munications campaign “WalMart is working for everyone”. The message was a response to critics of its wages and benefits for its workers and its impacts on the munities where its stores are located. Some observers (including myself) raised the question of how this message could be effective when the pany was being widely criticised (with extensive media coverage) for reportedly closing a store where employees were trying to anise a union and when the pany was being sued (again with substantial media coverage) for discrimination against women employees. In my view the pany effort at munications and this specific message/theme were not likely to be effective. Sometimes even any munications can be questionable. CITGO found itself in a reputational brouhaha in the US in late 2021 when Venezuela39。 some thought the response munications should have continued, and some said nonadvertising munications should have been used. However, others argued t