Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 1

Running head: Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts

MATTEL’S TOY RECALL:

THE INFLUENCE OF GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATE MEDIA EFFORTS

ON NEWS COVERAGE

Jooyun Hwang
Doctoral Student
University of Florida

Spiro Kiousis, Ph.D.

Associate Professor
University of Florida
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 2

Manuscripts Accepted for Presentation to Public Relations Division, AEJMC 2008

Abstract

This study explores the crisis response strategies and issues frames that emerged in

government and corporate information subsides during the Mattel Toy Recall. In addition, a

total of 107 newspaper stories from the major four newspapers: The New York Times, The

Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today were content analyzed to examine

the subsequent media coverage to investigate whether the different media efforts between a

government agency and corporation that led to successful agenda-building efforts during a

crisis. This study found that government sources were less used in media coverage. More

findings and implications are discussed.

 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 3

Introduction

In September 2007, Mattel recalled more than 21 million toys worldwide. Mattel

reported that most of the recalls involved excessive lead paint found in Chinese-made toys.

Flaws in the manufacturing process at Chinese plants have been blamed for the lead problem.

However, a report carried by the Wall Street Journal (September 22, 2007) stated that the big

recall, affecting 18 million toys, involved tiny magnets that can easily fall off toys and be

deadly if swallowed. It also said that the vast majority of the recalled toys had nothing to do

with a failure of Chinese manufacturing, but with Mattel’s own design flaws.
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 4

According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, November 21, 2006),

three children were hospitalized, and all three suffered intestinal perforations that required

surgery. Due to the outbreak, Mattel suffered losses of up to $30 million dollars and almost 1.5

million toys it produced had to be taken off shelves. Before the outbreak, Mattel was the

largest toy manufacturer known for having strict safety standards (The Washington Post,

August 3, 2007).

As Mitroff (2003) argued, a positive public image can be destroyed during a crisis.

Scholars, however, have found that the strategic use of corporate information subsidies can

help win back public confidence because information sources have the ability to frame the

crisis for the media and public (Taylor, Ungureanu, & Caldiero, 2006). Using quantitative and

qualitative content analysis, this paper examines the crisis response strategies and issues

frames that emerged in government and corporate information subsides during the Mattel Toy

Recall. In addition, this study examines the subsequent media coverage of the crisis to

investigate the different media efforts between a government agency and corporation that led

to successful agenda-building efforts during a crisis.

Literature review

Crisis types and response strategies

One of the primary objectives of crisis management strategies is to maintain an

organization’s image, which is directly related to how publics perceive the organization

(Pearson & Mitroff, 1993; Sturges, 1994). An image has both positive and negative
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 5

dimensions. It is evident that an organization tries to protect its positive aspects and minimize

its negative aspects during a crisis (Sturges, 1994). Scholars have created many classification

schemes for crises. Common dimensions that have been used include: internal-external,

violent-nonviolent, intentional-unintentional, severe-normal damage, technical-sociopolitical

failure, remote-relevant environment, high-low deniability, and concrete-diffuse victims

(Egelhoff & Sen, 1992; Marcus & Goodman, 1991; Newsom, Scott, & Turk, 1992; Pearson &

Mitroff, 1993). Coombs (1995), building on the all these typologies, created a crisis-type

matrix according to their point of the locus of origin (internal or external) and intentionality

(intentional or unintentional). The locus of control means whether the crisis was something

done by the organization itself (i.e. internal) or by some person or group outside of the

organization (external). Intentionality means the purposefulness of some actor who committed

the crisis event. In other words, if the crisis event was committed purposefully, it can be

considered as intentional and vice versa. Because an intentional act is more controllable than

an unintentional act (Russell, 1982), intentionality reflects the controllability dimension of

attribution theory (Coombs, 1995).

The internal-external and intentional-unintentional dimensions can be crossed to form

four mutually exclusive crisis types. A faux pas is an unintentional action that an external

agent tries to transform into a crisis. Terrorism refers to intentional actions taken by external

actors. An accident is unintentional and happens during the course of normal organizational

operations. Some scholars subdivide accidents into acts of nature, for example, hurricanes,
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 6

earthquakes, droughts, epidemics, etc., and human induced errors, such as work place injuries,

product defects, industrial accidents, etc. Transgressions are intentional actions taken by an

organization that knowingly place publics at risk or harm.

Given that Mattel has more than 10 years of history with toy recalls due to the same

reasons, i.e., lead-paint and magnet detachment problems, Mattel’s toy recall outbreak seem to

fall between accident, especially human induced errors, and transgressions.

Building on the work of Allen and Caillouet (1994) and Benoit (1992), Coombs

(1995) identified five organizational response strategies to crisis situations. First, the

nonexistence strategies seek to show that there is no link between the fictitious crisis and the

organization. The four nonexistence sub-strategies are denial, clarification, attack, and

intimidation. Second, the distance strategies acknowledge the crisis while weakening the

linkage between the crisis and the organization. Through this, an organization tries to create

public acceptance of the crisis. Excuse and justification are the sub-strategies. Third,

ingratiation strategies seek to gain public approval by connecting the organization to things

positively valued by publics. Bolstering, which reminds publics of the existing positive aspects

of the organization; transcendence, which tries to place the crisis in a larger, more desirable

context, and praising are the other sub-strategies. The fourth strategy is mortification. It

attempts to win forgiveness of the publics and to create acceptance for the crisis. Three sub-

strategies are: 1) remediation, which willingly offers some form of compensation or help to

victims, such as money, goods, aid, etc., 2) repentance, which involves asking for forgiveness
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 7

by apologizing for the crisis, 3) rectification involves taking action to prevent a recurrence of

the crisis in the future. Finally, the suffering strategy portrays that an organization is an unfair

victim of the crisis.

The best way to protect an organizational image is by altering a public’s negative

perceptions of the organization by choosing the appropriate crisis response strategies

(Coombs, 1995) and letting publics know what efforts an organization is making to handle the

crisis situation.

Agenda-setting theory offers a useful conceptual framework for understanding how

key publics learn about crises and how organizations respond to them. Early agenda setting

research suggested that a major determinant of the salience of issues in public opinion is the

news media (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). Even though the relationship between media and

public salience is well-documented, researchers also had been interested in probing the process

by which media salience is formed. This process is particularly critical in a crisis situation

when access to sources and information can be limited.

In his analysis of best practices in crisis communications, Heath (2006) recommended

being available to the media, as well as being open and honest with messages about

organizational crises. Fern-Banks (2001) even argued that a communication strategy may fail

if the message is not conveyed through the media. Thus, in order to be effective crisis

communication strategies, it is crucial to keep information flowing to the media (Martin &

Boynton, 2005). As such, agenda-building theory is useful for addressing the process of
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 8

effectively conveying messages through the media in crisis communication management.

Agenda Building and Framing

Agenda building scholars have paid attention to how media sources, indirectly or

directly, influence the media agenda (Hale, 1978; Weaver & Elliott, 1985; Turk, 1986). In the

context of public relations, Ohl, Pincus, Rimmer and Harrison (1995) argue that agenda

building “refers to the sources’ interaction with gatekeepers, a give-and-take process in which

sources seek to get their information published and the press seeks to get that information from

independent sources” (p.90). Through information subsidies provided to journalists via

practices such as interviews, press conferences, news releases, and so forth, public relations

efforts are influential in helping to create the media agenda (Turk, 1986). Indeed, studies have

provided evidence that journalists credit public relations sources for impacting about 25 % to

80% of news content (Cameron, Sallot, & Curtin, 1997; Curtin, 1999; Sallot & Johnson,

2006). However, not all information subsidies are covered in the media. Scholars have

suggested that several factors affect the media attention, including newsworthiness, timing

(Cameron et al., 1997; Turk, 1986), attractiveness to large audiences, journalistic norms and

principles, and journalistic values such as the watchdog function (Martin & Singletary, 1981).

Another factor shaping the effectiveness of information subsidies is source credibility.

Journalists are more likely to trust government and nonprofit sources than information

provided by corporate sources because they are perceived to be more inherently self serving

and driven by profit motives, which in turn devalue the newsworthiness of their information
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 9

subsidies (Pincus, Rimmer, Rayfield, & Cropp, 1993; Curtin, 1999). Based on in-depth

interviews with journalists, Curtin (1999) found that those interview participants who most

mistrusted practitioners' motivations made sure to keep control of all interactions with

practitioners. The easiest way to accomplish this was to take control of information subsidies

provided by practitioners. However, a loss of control, which results in loss of preferred

framing in news coverage, can be also problematic for practitioners (Curtin& Gaither, 2007).

Thus, even though media coverage resulted, public relations agenda building efforts can be

regarded as a failure because the media presentation of the issues does not reflect practitioners’

intention (Curtin, 1999).

According to Hallahan (1999), public relations practitioners “fundamentally operate

as frame strategists, who strive to determine how situations, attributes, choices, actions, issues

and responsibility should be posed to achieve favorable objectives” (p.224, emphasis in

original).

Entman (1993) defines framing as “to select some aspects of a perceived reality and

make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular

problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation”

(p. 52, emphasis added). Previous research argues that a recent development in agenda-setting

research is to view the selection of key attributes as framing (McCombs & Ghanem, 2001;

Chyi & McCombs, 2004). In similar fashion, this study proposes that the salience of objects

and attributes in public relations messages can increase the salience of those elements on the
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 10

media and subsequently on the public agendas. Thus, the agenda building process explicitly

involves the transfer of both object and attributes salience (Kiousis, et al., 2006).

Whereas extensive research has emerged examining agenda building and framing

effects in various settings, including political communication (Kiousis, et al., 2006), health

communication (Yu, 2006), and corporate communication (Oh et al., 1995), minimal attention

has been paid to the relationships between public relations messages and their coverage in

crisis settings, a gap the current study aims to fill.

Based on the logic of agenda building and framing, the following hypothesis and

research questions are yielded.

RQ1: What crisis response strategies were employed by Mattel and government agency in
their information subsidies?

RQ2: Is there a difference between Mattel and a government agency in framing crisis
strategy?

RQ3: Is there a difference between Mattel and a government agency in framing Mattel’s
toy recall?

RQ4: How did media frame Mattel’s toy recall?

H1: Government information sources will be more quoted in media coverage than is
corporate information sources.
Methodology

Research Design and Sampling Procedure

This investigation used a quantitative and a qualitative content analysis to answer the

research questions and hypothesis. In the qualitative assessment, this study attempted to
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 11

identify important framing devices both in the information subsidies and news content.

To compare the different media efforts between an organization and government

agency, all information subsidies from November 1, 2006 to February 29, 2008 found on

Mattel’s Web site (http://www.mattel.com) and Lexis-Nexis database that addressed the recall

crisis (n=9) were analyzed. To determine how a government agency contributed to media

coverage, all press releases and news conferences found on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety

Commission Web site (http://www.cpsc.gov) and Lexis-Nexis during the same period were

tracked (n=8). This time period was chosen because the study wanted to find out whether there

is any post-crisis strategy used by Mattel and how a corporation and government agency and

subsequent media coverage show the difference in defining the cause of toy recall.

Using the same time period and search terms “Mattel” and “recall” on Lexis-Nexis,

the searches resulted in a total of 135 news articles in four major newspapers. However, 28

stories that made only passing mention of the crisis, such as a small cite in a large article on

the stock market, letters to the editor, and Mattel’s acquisition were excluded from the

analysis.

A total of 107 newspaper stories were content analyzed from the major four

newspapers: The New York Times (N=29), The Washington Post (N=19), The Wall Street

Journal (N=50) and USA Today (N=9). Except for the news stories excluded, all articles

published in the four newspapers between November 1, 2006, and February 29, 2008, were

analyzed, instead of using samples from the population.

 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 12

Measurement

The unit of analysis was individual news articles about Mattel’s toy recall. Each

article was categorized according to three main frames that emerged from the analysis, which

included portraying Mattel’s toy recall as 1) Crisis Factor Frame, 2) Crisis Strategy Frame,

and 3) Influence Frame.

The crisis factor frame messages identify all the causes of toy recall mentioned in

each message – 1) lead paint problem (only) and 2) magnet detach problem or design flaws

(only), 3) both lead and magnet problems, and 4) some other reasons. Secondly, the analysis

identified the predominant factor described in the news article. The predominant factor was

identified as the factor used most frequently or covered more than half the story.

The crisis strategy frame included five sub-categories that followed the Crisis-

Response Strategies identified by Coombs (1995) mentioned in the literature review,

including: 1) Nonexistence strategies, 2) Distance strategies, 3) Ingratiation strategies, 4)

Mortification strategies, and 5) Suffering strategies.

Mattel’s toy recall as an influence frame identifies whether the recall has influence on

the following four sub-categories: 1) Adverse health effects on Children, 2) People perception

on “made in China” product, 3) Toy Industry & Government, and 4) China. Tone of the

frames (negative, neutral, and positive) was also coded.

Adverse health effects on Children articles first identify the cause(s) of children

injuries due to the toy recalled: whether it is lead poising or choking due to swallowing
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 13

magnets detached from toys. Then, this frame also shows whether the media provide further

information on how people can handle the adverse health effects when children were poisoned

by lead and/or choked by swallowing magnets.

People’s perception on “Made in China” product articles describe the influence of the

toy recall on consumer perceptions regarding Chinese made products, such as toys, sea food,

pet food, toothpaste, etc. Stories about the toy recall depicted people showing fear and worry

about Chinese-made products were coded as negative.

Toy Industry & Government articles described whether Mattel’s recall had an

economic impact on the toy industry or legislative influence on government. Stories about

Mattel causing a decrease in the general toy industry sales were coded as negative. From a

legal perspective, articles that blame government or industry having weak regulation or

standard as negative, and articles about Mattel’s case provides a good chance to promote

stricter regulation or law is required to prevent such crisis were coded as positive.

Finally, Influence on China articles included two sub-categories: 1) Reputation of

China, and 2) Safety problems in China. For Reputation of China, stories that indicated Mattel

had some negative influence on China’s reputation were coded as negative. For the Safety

problems aspect, stories about environmental contamination due to the increased number of

factory (vendors) in China and about workers who are suffering from kidney failure due to

nickel/lead poisoning were coded as negative, and articles about Mattel providing a good

opportunity to consider environment/worker protection in China were coded as positive.

 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 14

To assess reliability, randomly selected 10% of all the data was examined by two

graduate students. Using Holsti’s formula (1969), intercoder reliability for the information

subsidies was 97.40 percent and 92.02 percent for the media stories.

Results

The first and second research questions asked what crisis response strategies did

Mattel and the CPSC employ during the crisis and asked whether any difference existed

between the two. Quantitative and qualitative content analyses were used to answer the first

and second research questions. Table 1 summarizes crisis strategies employed both by Mattel

and government agency.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 1 here
---------------------------------
A total of nine information subsidies release by Mattel were analyzed. The nine

information subsidies averaged 614 words in length. Among the four crisis response strategies,

three strategies appeared a total of 24 times. Three strategies employed by Mattel were:

Distance (N=3, 12.5%), Ingratiation (N=5, 21%), and Mortification (N=16, 66.5%). Compared

to Mattel, the CPSC used only one strategy, the Mortification strategy (N=9, 100%).

Mattel

Distance: The distance strategy (12.5%) was used to acknowledge the crisis while

weakening the relationships between the crisis and the organization. For example, one of the

press releases (September 4, 2007) said that “Mattel’s investigation revealed that the
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 15

subcontractors painted the affected toys …” which shows no linkage between Mattel and its

subcontractors.

Ingratiation: During the crisis, bolstering (N=3, 12.5%) was used to remind the public

of the company’s previous safety standard. For example, Mattel said “We were the first toy

company to invite independent and public monitoring to our manufacturing facilities

(September, 10, 2007)” to emphasize its existing positive actions. Bolstering was used

consistently to remind the public and win back Mattel’s reputation even after the crisis seemed

to be waning. One information subsidy released on January 23, 2008, asserted that Mattel had

been named to the prestigious 11th annual “100 Best Companies to Work For” list, ranking

number 70. Mattel emphasized that it is “the only toy company” to make the 2008 list.

When Mattel’s chairman and executive officer testified at a House hearing on toy

safety, he used a transcendence strategy (N=1, 4.2%) to place its own crisis in the entire toy

industry, a larger and more desirable context. He said that “…we will share with other toy

companies what we’ve learned to help improve industry practices overall, and to ensure that

children play with safe toys regardless of who made them or where they were made.”

On September 21, 2007, Mattel apologized to China for contributing to a negative

reputation of Chinese manufacturers and tried an Ingratiation Strategy to win back the

relationship with China by admitting Mattel’s design flaws and praising China (N=1, 4.2%)

indirectly: Mattel stated that “The follow-up inspections confirmed that part of the recalled

toys complied with the U. S. standards,” which is contrary to what Mattel had originally
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 16

stated.

Mortification Strategies. The majority of the information subsidies used mortification

strategies (N=16, 66.5%). Specifically, remediation (N=7, 29.2%) was used to offer some form

of compensation or help to victims. They offered self-efficacy information for consumers to

contact the organization to find out more information on a complete list of each toy recalled

and how to return the affected toys. The forms of self-efficacy information include: 1) Web

site URL (n=6), 2) 1-800 hotline numbers (n=5), and 3) Mattel Corporate Communications

phone numbers (n=2). Because a few releases provided more than one form of self-efficacy

information, the total number of each type of information is more than nine, the total number

that Mattel has released. Another form of the Remediation strategy was using vouchers, which

was mentioned two times. After receiving consumers-affected toys, Mattel set up a program to

provide consumers with a voucher that can be used at most national retailers for the toys

affected by the recall. Both online information and phone numbers were provided to fill out a

form for a voucher. Seven out of nine of information subsidies said that “a thorough

investigation in the matter” is being conducted. To show their ‘willingness,’ four out of nine

subsidies used the term “voluntary recall.”

The Repentance strategy appeared three times (12.5%), which involves asking

forgiveness by apologizing for the crisis. These were always carried by the chairman and chief

executive officer of Mattel in the form of direct quotes, such as“…We apologize again to

everyone affected by this recall…”

 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 17

Rectification strategy was appeared six times (25%) out of nine information subsidies.

It was used to show Mattel’s action to prevent a recurrence of the crisis in the future. For

instance, “Mattel has announced plans to require supplier certification and to do more random,

unannounced inspections.”

Government agency

To find out the crisis strategies employed by the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety

Commission), a government agency, a total of eight information subsidies were analyzed.

Seven news releases and one news conference with Chairwoman of the CPSC were available.

Compared to Mattel, the CPSC used only one strategy: Mortification.

Mortification Strategies: Similar to Mattel, the CPSC also provided self-efficacy information

for consumers. All eight information subsidies provided Mattel’s Web site, the CPSC media

contact phone number, Mattel’s hotline number, and the CPSC’s hotline number for recall.

Twenty-five percent (n=2) of the information subsidies provided the CPSC’s own Web site. It

was given to report a dangerous product or a product-related injury. All eight information

materials used “voluntary recall” to show their willingness of managing current crisis.

Only one out of eight information materials used Rectification as crisis strategy, which

was delivered during the news conference. Compared to Mattel’s Rectification strategy, which

mainly focuses on Mattel’s future strategy to prevent crisis, the suggestion from the CPSC

deals with safety standards in a more broad perspective, such as “….In September of this year,

the CPSC will hold its second U.S – Sino safety summit here in Washington to continue its
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 18

mission of improving product safety for those products being manufactured in China and sold

in the United States...”

The third research question asked whether there is a difference between Mattel and a

government agency in framing Mattel’s toy recall. A difference was found in defining the

Crisis factor and Influence frame.

Crisis factor frame: Descriptive statistics and a qualitative analysis were used to

answer the third research question. Table 2 shows the difference between how Mattel and the

government agency defined the crisis and influence factor. While Mattel attributed the crisis

more to a lead-paint problem (N=6, 67%), the government agency found the cause of crisis

more from the magnet detach problem (N=5, 62.5%).

Influence frame: The influence frame emerged only from the information subsidies

released by the government agency; it was not found in Mattel’s information materials. Among

the four sub-categories of the influence frame – 1) Adverse health effects on Children, 2)

Perception on Chinese product, 3) Toy Industry & Government, and 4) China, the CPSC

mainly focused on the influence of Mattel’s toy recall on children.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 2 here
---------------------------------
All eight information subsidies released by the CPSC mentioned Hazard and

Incidents/Injuries of both lead paint (N=2), magnet detachment problems (N=5), and both

(N=1). Hazard describes how problems can be happening and the effects of the problem on
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 19

children. An example of a message mentioning the magnet hazard is “Tiny magnets can fall

out….it can be swallowed, aspired by young children… the magnets can attract each other and

cause intestinal perforation, infection or blockage, which can be fatal. Aspiration to the lungs

requires immediate surgery.”

Incidents/Injuries depict the number of incidents reported and the medical treatment

required for the victims. An example statement is “Mattel has received more than 400

additional reports of magnets coming loose. CPSC was aware in the first recall announcement

of 170 reports of the magnets coming out of the recalled toys. There had been 3 reports of

serious injuries to children who swallowed more than one magnet. All three suffered intestinal

perforations that required surgery.”

Looking at the agenda-building relationship, RQ4 asked how media framed Mattel’s

toy recall, especially in defining three dominant frames – 1) Crisis factor, 2) Crisis Strategy,

and 3) Influence frame.

Crisis factor frame

Table 3 summarizes Mattel’s toy recall coverage frequency and percentage based on

the Crisis Factor frame for four major newspapers. It shows that all four newspapers attributed

the crisis factor more to lead-paint problems -- USA Today (N=6, 67%), The New York Times

(N=18, 62%), The Washington Post (N=12, 63%), and The Wall Street Journal (N=28, 56%).

---------------------------------
Insert Table 3 here
---------------------------------
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 20

Crisis Strategy Frame

Table 4 shows Mattel’s toy recall coverage frequency and percentage based on the

Crisis Strategy frame for the four major newspapers. The crisis strategies that were employed

by Mattel and the government agency were hardly found in news coverage. Remediation

(N=7, 78% and N=8, 100%, Mattel and CPSC, respectively) was the most frequently used

crisis strategy by Mattel and government agency. However, only 37.5% (N=15) of the total

news stories analyzed mentioned the remediation strategy.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 4 here
---------------------------------
Influence Frame: Table 5 shows how Mattel’s toy recall was framed in the news stories in

terms of Influence frame. The four sub-categories that emerged were: 1) Adverse health effects

on Children, 2) Perception of Chinese products, 3) Toy Industry & Government, and 4) China.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 5 here
---------------------------------
Children: The Influence on Children frame was defined as whether the news story

provided further information on lead poisoning and swallowing magnets that can cause serious

mental, physical and behavioral problems for children, so that people can learn more about the

problem itself and how to handle the problem when it actually happens to them. About 28%

(N=30) of the total news stories mentioned further information on either lead or magnet

problems or both. Among the total 107 articles, 13% of the stories provided further

information on lead poisoning (N=14), and 12% of the stories (N=13) mentioned adverse
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 21

health effects in children when they swallow or are choked with magnets. Only two articles

(1.7%) provided further information on both lead and magnet problem.

Perception on Chinese product: The Perception on Chinese product frame was about

whether the articles mention how people’s perception on China made products changed (or

remained) after the Mattel’s crisis happened. Twenty one percent (N=23) of the stories

mentioned public perception on Chinese-made products in terms of direct and indirect quotes.

Negative tones (N=21, 20%), which generally described that people are concerned about the

products that were made in China, appeared more than positive tones (N=2, 1.9%), which

showed that people do not worry or fear about the Chinese made products.

Toy industry & Government: Nine stories (8.4%) mentioned Mattel crisis’ economic

influence on the toy industry in the Unites States. Among the total of 107 articles, five stories

(4.7%) used negative tones, saying that Mattel has a negative influence on toy industry sales,

and four stories (3.7%) mentioned that Mattel did not really affect industry sales.

From a legal perspective, a total of 21 stories (19.6%) mentioned the relationship

between Mattel’s toy recall and legal aspects. Thirteen percent of the articles (N=14) found

responsibility or blame from the government or toy industry about the crisis due to their weak

regulation and standards about product safety. Seven articles (6.5%) found Mattel’s case as a

good opportunity to promote stricter regulation to prevent such crises in the future.

Influence on China: Finally, the Influence on China frame included two sub-

categories: 1) Reputation of China, and 2) Safety problems in China and were categorized by
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 22

three tones - negative, positive, and neutral. For Reputation of China, 11 stories (10.3%)

mentioned Mattel’s influence on the general reputation of China. About 9% of the total articles

used negative tones asserting that Mattel had some negative influence on China reputation.

For the Safety problems aspect, four stories (3.7%) mentioned Safety problems in

China. Three stories (2.8%) delivered negative aspects, such as employees who are suffering

from kidney failure due to nickel /lead poisoning, and one story (0.1%) used a positive tone

that said Mattel provided a good opportunity to consider environment and worker protection in

China.

H1 predicted that government information sources will be more quoted in media

coverage than is corporate information sources. To test H1, descriptive statistics were used.

Table 6 summarizes source frequencies and percentages based on two types of sources, direct

quotes and attributed sources. For direct quotes, Mattel was quoted almost as twice as much as

the government agency (N=36, 18.5% and N=18, 9.3%, Mattel and CPSC, respectively). In

the case of the attributed sources, Mattel was also more frequently used (N=33, 33.6%, N=19,

19.4%, Mattel and CPSC, respectively). Both for direct quotes and attributed sources,

corporate sources were predominated in news coverage. H1 was not supported.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 6 here
---------------------------------
Discussion

The first and second research questions asked what crisis response strategies were
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 23

employed by Mattel and the CPSC, a government agency and asked whether any difference

existed between the two.

The data revealed that Mattel and the CPSC used appropriate measures, namely

Mortification strategies (remediation, repentance, and rectification). They employed

remediation most frequently (N=7 and N=8, Mattel and CPSC, respectively) supported by an

Ingratiation strategy (specifically, bolstering). Mattel highlighted its positive qualities while

atoning for its negative actions. As Coombs and Holladay (1996) have contended,

nonexistence and distance strategies do not work in transgressions, and the Mortification

strategy is the best response for transgressions. Both Mattel and the CPSC’s responses were

rapid and the messages conveyed the actions being taken to investigate the crisis. Also,

compensation was offered to victims and self efficacy information was provided in the form of

a Web site URL, 1-800 hotline number, and corporate contact information. However, a

different response approach was found between Mattel and the government agency. While

Mattel used the other sub-types of Mortification, repentance (N=3) and rectification (N=6), the

government agency mostly used remediation (N=8). What was missing was rectification as it

was used only once in their all information subsidies. Given that the CPSC is enacted to

protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury, the government agency needed to supply

more information on developing the safety standard to prevent further crisis.

The third research question asked whether there is a difference between Mattel and the

government agency in framing Mattel’s toy recall, especially in defining the Crisis factor and
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 24

Influence frame. It is notable that while Mattel found the crisis factor from the lead-paint

problems (67%), the government agency attributed the crisis more to magnet problems

(62.5%). Considering that blame goes more on China when the crisis factor is identified as

lead-paint problem, Mattel tried identity distancing techniques while still admitting their

responsibility.

Also noteworthy was the way Mattel and the government agency provided the

Influence frame; it was not found in Mattel, but only emerged from the government agency’s

information subsidies. The influence frame was defined as whether the news article provided

further information of the effects of Mattel’s recall on 1) children, 2) public perception on

Chinese product, 3) the toy industry and government and 4) China. Because Mattel’s case is

about toy recall, the main victims of the crisis are children. Among the four sub categories of

the Influence frame, the government agency mainly focused on children. In contrast to Mattel,

all eight information subsidies released by the government agency included adverse health

effects of lead-paint and magnet choking problems on children, the number of victims and

their medical treatments.

The fourth research question probed agenda-building relationships that asked how

media framed Mattel’s case in defining the three dominant frames – 1) Crisis factor, 2) Crisis

Strategy, and 3) Influence frame. Firstly, the data revealed that all four newspapers attributed

the crisis factor more to lead-paint problems. The analysis for RQ3 found that Mattel, the

corporate source, also attributed the crisis factor more to lead-paint problems. Government
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 25

sources are considered to be more balanced and thus more credible than corporate sources

(Pincus, et al., 1993; Curtin, 1999). However, it seems like it did not happen in this case.

Scholars have focused on the different characteristics of news releases that appear to

contribute to their success in entering the media agenda, and one possibility could be the

distinction between direct and indirect subsidies. As Gandy (1982) stated, “the journalists

receive a direct information subsidies, and government receives an indirect subsidy when the

information is read in the paper or heard on the news” (p. 62, italic in original). Indirect

subsidies are also delivered in many different ways (Gandy, 1992), such as a government

agency receives a report from an organization after a crisis happened. Thus, it can be

explained that media might find corporate news sources more accurate in the case of crises,

when the fact is preferred to be checked with the direct news source (Martin & Singletary,

1981), such as a corporation rather than government, an indirect information subsidies

recipient.

Secondly, the crisis strategies that were employed by Mattel and the government

agency were minimally found in news coverage. Mattel and the government agency most

frequently used remediation, which is the most critical response strategy for Mattel to win

forgiveness of publics and to create acceptance for the crisis by willingly offering some form

of compensation or help to victims (Marcus & Goodman, 1991). However, only 14% (N=15)

of the total news stories mentioned remediation strategy. It appears that the findings do not

confirm the basic agenda-building proposition that increased attribute salience in public
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 26

relations materials stimulates increased attention to attributes in news coverage. Most news

articles focused on economic aspects explaining why many domestic U.S. products have to be

made in foreign countries, especially in China.

Thirdly, the influence frame was only found in the government agency’s information

subsidies. As found in RQ3, the government agency mainly focused on the effect of the toy

recall on children. Only 28% (N=30) of the total news stories mentioned further information

on either the lead or magnet problem or both. Turning to agenda-building theory again, it

appears that government media efforts did not succeed.

The ideal outcome of information subsidies’ efforts (from the point of view of the

source) would be that the coverage reflects a similar perspective to the one presented in the

subsidies (Zoch & Molleda, 2006). The failure of agenda-building efforts of both the

corporation and government agency can be explained by lack of (or weak) additional efforts to

reinforce their viewpoints. Ohl et. al., (1995) argued that “information subsidies should be

considered more a ‘stage setter’ than a self-contained news package; that is, it provides basic

facts and presents the sponsor’s perspective, both of which hopefully whet reporters’ appetites

to seek further clarification and/or additional information” (p. 100).

H1 predicted that government sources will be quoted more frequently in media

coverage than corporate sources. As many scholars have argued, because corporation are more

inherently self serving and are driven by profit motives, government sources tend to be cited

more often in news stories because they are considered to be more credible and balanced than
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 27

corporate sources (Pincus, et al., 1993; Curtin, 1999). However, H1 was not supported.

Considering both direct and indirect quotes, Mattel was more frequently cited as an

information source. Thus, the investigation of the sources in Mattel’s case does not mirror that

of previous research in that government sources were less used in media coverage.

Limitations & Future Research

Like most studies, this research has several limitations. First, this study focuses on the

United States. Different results might be found if newspapers in other countries, such as

China, were investigated. Second, further research should examine different types of media

such as broadcasting and other print media. In addition, different types of newspapers, such as

market-specific print media should be examined to see whether the effects of placing public

relations messages show differences. Thirdly, due to the small number of news releases

available, meaningful inferential statistics was not available, which precludes generalizibility.

Fourthly, contradicting previous findings, corporate sources were more frequently cited than

government sources by major newspapers. This finding should be viewed with caution

because it could be due to the narrow focus on one case study. Replication on other cases

would be helpful to corroborate the theoretical framework. Finally, the coding found other

types of sources such as consumer advocacy groups, activists, etc. In a rapidly changing media

environment, advocacy and activist groups are in alliance or hostility with organizations,

serving as expert sources of information and influencing the policy agenda. Thus, future

research should include other groups' communications to provide a comprehensive overview

 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 28

of the various voices impacting public and policy discussions.

 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 29

References

Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimate endeavors: Impression management

strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61, 44-62.

Benoit, W. L. (1992). Union Carbide and the Bhopal tragedy. Paper presented at the Speech

Communication Association, 1992 Annual Meeting, Chicago.

Cameron, G., Sallot, L. M., & Curtin, P. A. (1997). Public relations and the production of

news: A critical review and theoretical framework. Communication Yearbook, 20, 111-155.

Casey, N., Zamiska, N., & Pasztor, A. (2007, September 22). Mattel seeks to placate China

with apology. The Wall Street Journal.

Chyi, H., & McCombs, M. (2004). Media salience and the process of framing: Coverage of the

Columbine school shootings. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 22-35.

Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the

selection of the “Appropriate” crisis-response strategies. Management Communication

Quarterly, 8(4), 447-476.

Coombs, T., & Holladay, S. (1996). Communication and attributions in a Crisis: An

experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 84(4),

279-295.

Curtin, P. A. (1999). Reevaluating public relations information subsidies: Market driven

journalism and agenda-building theory and practice. Journal of public Relations Research,

11(1), 53-90.
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 30

Curtin, P. & Gaither, T. K. (2007). Crisis response and agenda building during the spinach E.

Coli crisis: A mixed method analysis. Paper presented at the International Communication

Association, 2007 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Egelhoff, W.G., & Sen, F. (1992). An information-processing model of crisis management.

Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 443-484.

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication, 43(4), 51-58.

Fern-Banks, K. (2001). Crisis communication: A review of some best practices. In R. Heath

(ed.), The Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 479-485). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Gandy, O. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.

Hale, D.F. (1978). Press release vs. Newspaper coverage of California Supreme Court

Decision. Journalism Quarterly, 55(Winter), 696-702.

Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205-242.

Heath, R. (2006). The Handbook of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Kiousis, S., Mitrook, M., Wu, X., & Seltzer, T. (2006). First- and second-level agenda-building

and agenda-setting effects: Exploring the linkages among candidate news releases, media

coverage, and public opinion during the 2002 Florida gubernatorial election. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 18(3), 265-285.

 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 31

Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate

reputation: An examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and

financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147-165.

Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (1981). Watergate: An exploration of the agenda-building process.

Mass Communication Review Yearbook, 2, 447-469.

Marcus, A., & Goodman, R. (1991). Victims and shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting

corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 281-305.

Martin, R. M., & Boynton, L. A. (2005). From liftoff to landing: NASA's crisis

communications and resulting media coverage following the Challenger and Columbia

tragedies. Public Relations Review, 31(2), 253-261.

Martin, W. P., & Singletary, M. W. (1981). Newspaper treatment of state government releases.

Journalism Quarterly, 58, 93-96.

McCombs, M. E. (1995). The media outside and the pictures in our heads: Surveying the

second dimension of agenda setting. Paper presented at New Trends in Communication, a

conference of the Universita Degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy.

McCombs, M., & Ghanem, S. (2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In

Reese, S., Gandy, O., & Grant, E. (eds), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our

understanding of the social world. (pp. 67-81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 32

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda setting function of mass media. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.

Merle, R. (2007, August 3). Recalls of toys pressure agency; CPSC resources called

inadequate. The Washington Post.

Mitroff, I. (2003). Crisis leadership: Planning for the unthinkable. New York: Wiley.

Newsom, D., Scott, A., & Turk, J.V. (1992). This is PR: The realities of public relations (5th

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ohl, C. M, Pincus, J. D., Rimmer, T., & Harrison, D. (1995). Agenda building role in news

releases in corporate takeovers. Public Relations Review, 21(2), 89-101.

Pearson, C.M., & Mitroff, I.I. (1993). From crisis prone to crisis prepared: A framework for

crisis management. The Executive, 7, 48-59.

Pincus, J.D., Rimmer, T., Rayfield, R.E., & Cropp, F. (1993). Newspaper editors’ perception of

public relations: How business, news, and sports editors differ. Journal of Public Relations

Research, 5, 27-45.

Russell, D. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1145.

Sallot, L. M., & Johnson, E. A. (2006). To contact … or not?: Investigating journalists’

assessments of public relations subsidies and contact preferences. Public Relations Review,

32(1), 83-86.

Shoemaker, P., Wanta, W., & Leggett, D. (1989). Drug coverage and public opinion,
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 33

1972-1986. In P. Shoemaker (Ed.), Communication Campaigns about Drugs (pp. 67-80).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sturges, D.L. (1994). Communicating through crisis: A strategy for organizational survival.

Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 297-316.

Taylor, M., Ungureanu, L., & Caldiero, C. (2006). Telling the story in your words: The value

of news releases in image repair. Paper presented at the International Communication

Association, 2006 Annual Meeting, 1-31.

Turk, J. V. (1986). Information subsidies and media content: A study of public relations

influence on the news, Journalism Monograph, 100, 1-29.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2006, November 21). Serious injuries prompt

recall of Mattel's Polly Pocket magnetic play sets. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Weaver, D., & Elliot, S.M. (1985). Who sets the agenda for the media? A study of local

agenda-building. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 87-94.

Yu, Nan. (2006). AIDS coverage in China: a study of agenda-building and framing. Paper

presented at the International Communication Associations, 2006 Annual Meeting.

Zoch, L. M., & Molleda, J. (2006). Building a theoretical model of media relations using

framing, information subsidies, and agenda-building. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton (eds),

Public Relations Theory II. (pp. 279-309). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 34

Table 1. Crisis Strategies employed by Mattel and CPSC

Issue Mattel (N=9) CPSC (N=8)
Crisis Strategy Frame Frequency % Frequency %
A. Distance (sub-total) 3 12.5 0 0
B. Ingratiation (sub-total) 5 21
 Bolster 3 12.5 0 0
 Transcendence 1 4.2 0 0
 Praising Others 1 4.2 0 0
C. Mortification (sub-total) 16 66.5 0 0
• Remediation 7 29.2 8 89
 Repentance 3 12.5 0 0
 Rectification 6 25 1 11
D. Suffering (sub-total) 0 0 0 0
 Victimization 0 0 0 0
Total 24 100 9 100

Table 2. Crisis factor and Influence frame identified by Mattel and CPSC
Issue Mattel (N=9) CPSC (N=8)
Crisis Factor Frame Frequency % Frequency %
 Lead 6 67 2 25
 Magnet 2 22 5 62.5
 Both 0 0 1 12.5
 Not mention 1 11 0 0
Sub-total 9 100 8 100
Influence Frame
A. Children Frequency % Frequency %
 Lead 0 0 2 25
 Magnet 0 0 5 62.5
 Both 0 0 1 12.5
 Not mention 9 100 0 0
Sub-total 9 100 8 100

Table 3. Frequency of Crisis factor frame covered by four newspapers

Issue The New York The The Wall USA Today TOTAL
Times (N=29) Washington Street Journal
Post (N=19) (N=50) (N=9)
Crisis Factor Frame Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%) Frequency (%)
 Lead 18 (62%) 12 (63%) 28 (56%) 6 (67%) 64 (60%)
 Magnet 0 (0%) 4 (21.5%) 10 (20%) 1 (11%) 15 (14%)
 Both 7 (24%) 2 (10.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%) 10 (9%)
 Not mention 4 (14%) 1 (5%) 12 (24%) 1(11%) 18 (17%)
Sub-total 29 19 50 9 107 (100%)

Table 4 Frequency of Crisis Strategy frame covered by four newspapers

Issue The New York The The Wall USA Today TOTAL
Times (N=29) Washington Street Journal
Post (N=19) (N=50)
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 35

(N=9)
Crisis Strategy Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency (%)
Frame
A. Distance 1 0 3 0 4 (10%)
B. Ingratiation
 Bolster 2 0 2 0 4 (10%)
 Transcendence 1 0 1 0 2 (5%)
 Praising Others 0 0 0 0 0 (0%)
C. Mortification
 Remedy 5 3 5 2 15 (37.5%)
 Repentance 1 2 6 0 9 (22.5%)
 Rectification 1 1 1 2 5 (12.5%)
D. Suffering
 Victimization 1 0 0 0 1 (2.5%)
TOTAL 12 6 18 4 40 (100%)

Table 5. Frequency of Influence frame covered by four newspapers

Issue The New York The The Wall USA Today TOTAL
Times (N=29) Washington Street Journal
Post (N=19) (N=50) (N=9) (N=107)
Influence Frame Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency (%)
A. Children
 Lead 2 2 7 3 14 (13.1%)
 Magnet 4 2 5 2 13 (12.1%)
 Both 0 1 1 0 2 (1.7%)
 Others 0 0 0 1 1 (0.01%)
 Not mention 23 14 37 3 77 (72%%)
Sub-total 29 19 50 9 107 (100%)
B. Perception on
Chinese product
 Positive 0 0 1 1 2 (1.8%)
 Negative 8 4 5 4 21 (19.7%)
 Not mention 21 15 44 4 84 (78.5%)
Sub-total 29 19 50 9 107 (100%)
C. Toy Industry &
Government
Economic
 Negative 0 2 2 1 5 (4.7)

 Positive 1 0 3 0 4 (3.7)
Legislative
 Negative 6 3 4 1 14 (13.1%)

 Positive 2 1 4 0 7 (6.5%)
Sub-total 9 6 13 2 30 (19.6%)
D. Influence on China
Reputation of China
N=11(10.3%)
 Negative 4 1 5 0 10 (9.3%)

1 0 0 0 1 (0.1%)

 Positive
Safety problems
N=4 (3.7%)
 Negative 0 0 3 0 3 (2.8%)
 Crisis, Recall, Agenda-building, Corporate media efforts 36

 Positive 1 0 0 0 1 (0.1%)
TOTAL 12 6 18 4 40 (100%)

Table 6. Frequency of Type of sources covered by four newspapers

Type of sources The New York The USA Today TOTAL

Times Washington

The Wall Street Media

Journal Coverage

Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency (%)

A. Direct Quotes Mattel 12 7 14 3 36 (18.5%)
CPSC 4 6 5 3 18 (9.3%)
Others 34 21 64 21 140 (72.2%)
Sub-total 50 34 83 27 194 (100%)
B. Attributed Mattel 10 6 16 1 33 (33.6%)
Sources CPSC 3 6 7 3 19 (19.4)
Others 7 13 22 4 46 (47%)
Sub-total 20 25 45 8 98 (100%)
TOTAL 70 59 128 35 292