How to maximize the effectiveness of stealing thunder in crisis communication: the significance of follow-up actions and transparent communication

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to explore consumers' perceptions of stealing thunder and to investigate significant factors for maximizing its effect. Design/methodology/approach This study used a mixed-methods approach. First, qualitative responses from 286 Korean participants were collected and analyzed (Study 1). Second, the experiment employed a randomized 2 (crisis communication timing: stealing thunder vs thunder) × 2 (transparent vs nontransparent communication) × 2 (follow-up actions: good vs poor) between-subjects experimental design with 426 Korean participants to investigate and confirm the results of Study 1. Findings Qualitative data showed that the participants' evaluation of corporations' stealing thunder strategy is complicated. Some do not perceive corporate use of stealing thunder at face value, but rather view it as yet another hopeless, selfish and irresponsible crisis communication strategy, distrusting it based on strong cynicism toward all corporations. An experiment confirmed that stealing thunder was significantly more effective in eliciting consumers' ethical judgment (EJ) and word-of-mouth (WOM) on corporations than the thunder strategy. Significant two-way interaction effects between crisis timing and follow-up actions showed that the stealing thunder strategy should be accompanied by follow-up actions to increase consumers' credibility and WOM intentions. Originality/value This study investigated how consumers evaluate stealing thunder by adopting both a qualitative and quantitative approach to explore how they make meaning out of this phenomenon.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.