Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcqu20
Communication Quarterly
ISSN: 0146-3373 (Print) 1746-4102 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20
Another visit to the theory of image restoration
strategies
William L. Benoit
To cite this article: William L. Benoit (2000) Another visit to the theory of image restoration
strategies, Communication Quarterly, 48:1, 40-43, DOI: 10.1080/01463370009385578
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385578
Published online: 21 May 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2659
View related articles
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Another Visit to the Theory of Image
Restoration Strategies
William L. Benoit
KEY CONCEPTS Image restoration, corporate apoligy, rhetorical theory,
social leviathans
William L. Benoit (Ph.D., Wayne State University, 1979) is a Professor in the
Department of Communication, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
65211-2310.
Iview the essay by Burns and Bruner as generally sympathetic to my work. They
offer a number of important and thought-provoking insights. They appropriately
note that I acknowledged that I have not written the final word on this topic.
Indeed, I now tend to prefer image "repair" to image "restoration" because
"restoration" might imply that one's image has been restored to its prior state.
Sometimes one has to settle for repairs (or "patches;" and of course image restoration/
repair may not work at all). Nor do I assume my writing is always as clear as I might
hope. When one works on a variety of topics with multiple co-authors, one's focus
necessarily varies. Still, I want to point out a few places where I have anticipated some
of authors' concerns or disagree with their analysis.
Burns and Bruner reveal that their goal is "to emphasize and develop a more
audience(s)-oriented point of view, to ameliorate the constraints of the theory's
apparent focus on what seems to be a discrete source, a typology of the source's
strategies, and an understanding of'texf as something developed and delivered by the
source" (p. #). I do present a menu of options for those who feel the need to engage in
image repair (and I am trying to develop some guidelines for how sources can choose
from those options). Thus, my work inevitably focuses on the source, on the source's
options, and on discourse (texts) from sources. However, I do acknowledge the
importance of the audience in several ways.
First, I have always considered audience perceptions to be important In
discussing the two components of a persuasive attack (offensive act, blame for that
act), I observed (1995) that "The key point here, of course, is not whether in fact the
actor caused the damage, but whether the relevant audience believesthe actor to be the
source of the reprehensible act" (p. 72, emphasis original). I have defined "image" as
"the perception of a person (or group, or organization) held by the audience, shaped by
the words and actions of that person, as well as by the discourse and behavior of other
relevant actors" (1997a, p. 251, emphasis added; see also Benoit, 1997b, p. 178). Image
is in the eye of the beholder; perhaps, though, it would have been better to include this
definition in everything I've written. Note also that I explicitly acknowledge that
CommunicationQuarterly,Vol.48No 1 Winter2000,Pages40-44
image is influenced by "the discourse and behavior of other relevant actors," not
focusing exclusively on the text of the person or organization engaging in image repair.
Second, in a section on "Image Restoration and the Audience," I explain (1995)
that there are potentially multiple audiences. Elsewhere (1997b), I offer an illustration
of this claim:
It is vital to clearly identify the salient audience(s).... For example, suppose
a company is accused of dumping waste. At least five potential audiences can
be identified in this situation. First, the company may, of course, wish to
assuage the concerns of the attackers, the environmentalists. However, the
opinions of its stockholders are important, if they are aware of the controversy.
Governmental regulators may fine or otherwise sanction the company. If
customers decide to boycott the company because of the attacks, consumers
are another potential audience. Local voters could conceivably pass laws
restricting the company's business practices. The interests of these groups
differ widely. . and thus message appeals that might be effective with one
group could be worthless with another, (pp 182-183)
Thus, I explicitly acknowledge that it is "vital" for us to realize that there can be
multiple audiences with different interests and that this fact has important
implications for invention.
Third, our applications of the theory of image restoration discourse to situated
discourse attempt to determine the audience's (or audiences') likely reaction to the
discourse. For example, in our Texaco essay (Brinson & Benoit, 1999), we examine
factors such as media attention, boycott activity, and stock prices, concluding that
"This is not to say that Texaco had managed to eradicate all suspicion of corporate
racism, but the firestorm of criticism that erupted had passed by, leaving Texaco
largely intact The company had successfully weathered the storm" (p. 503). The
audience holds an important place in Image Restoration Theory and in our research,
despite an emphasis on rhetors who feel the need to repair their images.
Burns and Bruner also are concerned that my work uses "language that seems to
reflect a more static or linear view of rhetoric. For example, a dynamic notion of
'attack-defense' easily can be confused with the most static concept of 'exigenceresponse'
based on Bitzer's (1968) analysis of the rhetorical situation" (p. #). Yes,
others may misunderstand (confuse) this issue (see Benoit, 1994, for my views on
Bitzer's rhetorical situation). Of course, at times image repair does occur as a
particular discursive response to a specific rhetorical attack. However, I analyzed over
40 advertisements by Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola spanning the period of 1/22/90
through 12/21/92, to show how their conflicting themes were developed in multiple
messages over time (1995). My analysis reveals how these messages initiated and
repeated several attacks and defenses: There was no single attack which provoked a
solitary defense in these discourses. The static view they worry about is clearly not
inherent in my work.
They also express concerns about assessing effectiveness. They correctly note that
attributing causation to rhetorical discourse is very difficult. Edwards (1996) and
Stromer-Galley and Schiappa (1998) argue this point even more forcefully. I believe
that a rhetorical critic who is interested in effectiveness (and, of course, critics have a
variety of concerns) ought to first make a judgment about whether the discourse was
Another Visit to Image Restoration Strategies 41
well-developed or appropriate and then look to see whether available external
evidence supports that evaluation. I do not believe that evidence of effects should
substitute for the critic's assessment; neither do I believe critics who assess
effectiveness should ignore evidence of audience effects.
We have employed a variety of evidence to corroborate our judgments of
effectiveness in our research. Burns and Bruner, for example, suggested that "In the
Texaco case, conducting public opinion polls and comparing sales data are
appropriate methods for providing some solid backing for a claim that strategies cause
or are correlated with subsequent phenomena (p. 35). We did not have the resources
to conduct our own public opinion polls about Texaco; we sought both public opinion
data and sales figures; neither kind of data were available to us when we wrote about
Texaco (we have used both public opinion poll data and sales in other analyses when
those data were available). We provided the external evidence that we were able to
locate.
Incidentally, Burns and Bruner criticize our use of a decline in negative newspaper
coverage on Texaco (one of several indicators of effects we employed) because
"newspaper coverage of an issue can decline for many reasons" (p. 35). This objection
seems somewhat odd given the fact that they offer numbers of newspaper articles
about Texaco located via Lexis-Nexis as "a proven method for documenting effects"
(p. 36). Finding external evidence to support (corroborate, test) critical assessments of
effectiveness is difficult, but we make arguments that readers can accept or reject
I would also like to note that we have developed other suggestions for use of these
strategies beyond the few excerpts they cite (see Benoit, 1997a). My statement that
"denial and shifting the blame are not considered by those who are injured by the
action to be as appropriate or effective as other image restoration strategies" is not a
blanket conclusion, but the result of one experimental study (Benoit & Drew, 1997).
Furthermore, this statement should not be taken to mean that denial or shifting the
blame necessarily will be considered inappropriate or ineffective by other audiences
besides the injured parties.
Iwant to end this essay on a positive note. I agree with most of the ideas Burns and
Bruner have developed in their essay. We should always keep in mind that "a
corporation's image is not unitary or homogeneous" (p. 29). We must remember the
important role of audiences and their perceptions. We should realize that image is
dynamic and almost certainly cannot be "restored" to exactly its state before the
offensive act I embrace their call for rhetorical critics to consider "slogans,
ideographs, truncated, arguments, and the nonverbal aspects of image recreation" (p.
32). I do not dispute the importance of context, although I will note that every study
must have bounds or it cannot be completed. I agree that the audience may "watch"
to see if promises of corrective action actually yield fruit Indeed, my analysis of the
Valdez oil spill (1995) argued that Exxon's deeds did not match its words: "Consider the
claim that Exxon's cleanup efforts were swift and competent Evidence reaching the
public from non-company sources dramatically denies these assertions, revealing that
its actions were neither swift nor competent" (p. 126). I agree that ethnographic
research would make a useful contribution to the current primary method (rhetorical
criticism). I also embrace their call for experimental research into image restoration
theory, which is relatively uncommon (see Benoit & Drew, 1997; and McCleary's
(1983) experimental study of Ware & Linkugel's theory of apologia). I appreciate their
careful efforts to refine my theory and, like them, I "look forward with anticipation to
42 Benoit
further developments both in theory and application" (p. 38).
REFERENCES
Benoit, W. L. (1994). The genesis of rhetorical action. SouthernCommunicationJournal,59,342-
355.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts,excuses, apologies: A theoryof image restoration strategies. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W.L. (1997a). Hugh Grant's image restoration discourse: An actor apologizes. Communication
Quarterly, 45, 251-267.
Benoit, W. L. (1997b). Image restoration discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations
Review,23, 177-186.
Benoit, W. L., & Drew, S. (1997).Appropriateness and effectiveness of image repair strategies.
Communication Reports,10,153-163.
Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1999). The tarnished star: Restoring Texaco's damaged public
image. Management Communication Quarterly,12,483-510.
Burns,J. P.&Bruner, M.S. (2000). Revisiting the theory of Image Restoration Strategies, Communication
Quarterly.
Edwards, G. C. (1996). Presidential rhetoric: What difference does it make? In M. J. Medhurst
(Ed.), Beyondthe rhetorical presidency (pp. 199-217). College Station: Texas A&M University
Press.
McCleary, K. E. (1983). Audience effects of apologia. Communication Quarterly, 31, 12-20.
Stromer-Galley, J. & Schiappa, E. (1998). The argumentative burdens of audience conjectures:
Audience research in popular culture criticism. Communication Theory, 8,27-62.
Another Visit to Image Restoration Strategies 43