See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/370863701

Digital corporate communication and brandjacking and character

assassination

Chapter · May 2023

DOI: 10.4337/9781802201963.00026

CITATION READS

1 215

2 authors, including:

Sergei A Samoilenko
George Mason University
59 PUBLICATIONS 269 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sergei A Samoilenko on 06 November 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

16. Digital corporate communication and
brandjacking and character assassination
Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley

INTRODUCTION

The strategic management of digital corporate technologies, with a view to maintaining a com-
pany’s intangible and tangible assets, necessitates an understanding of emergent reputational
challenges. The evolution of digital communication has created new forms of visibility and
the conditions for permanent scandal (Haller et al., 2021). Today, cause-driven campaigns
and social movements use the strategies of disruption and subversion to exert pressure on
organizations and influence public opinion (Jasper and King, 2020). This chapter focuses on
two related practices, brandjacking and character assassination, advocating for their applied
relevance and conceptual worth when studying digital corporate communication (DCC).
Brandjacking is typically associated with the disruption of a brand’s narrative and the
appropriation of corporate identity by third parties (Langley, 2014; Luoma-aho et al., 2018).
This practice goes hand in hand with subversive campaigns using manipulated media or
doppelgängers (Samoilenko and Suvorova, 2023). Brandjacks promoting fake corporate
statements are especially harmful, as they can affect brand trust when perceived as credible
(Chan-Olmsted and Qin, 2021).
Character assassination (CA) is a strategic effort to discredit an individual or group target
via subversive communication (Samoilenko, 2021a). CA is prevalent in politicized contexts
and considered instrumental to goal achievement in power struggles (Shiraev et al., 2022).
Character attacks are persuasive attempts (Benoit, 2020) that take various forms, ranging from
an offensive caricature in a newspaper to a virulent conspiracy theory in an online community.
This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of brandjacking and CA in the corporate
context of digital communications. It argues that both practices have burgeoned in association
with new technologies used for manipulation and misinformation. In addition, brandjacking
and CA have been weaponized by digital activists to put pressure on individuals and compa-
nies in the context of cancel culture. To illustrate this point, the chapter examines two case
studies: a series of brandjacks targeting McDonald’s and a scandal with a Boeing CEO that
features his CA and subsequent disassociation from the brand. The implications of both con-
cepts are mainly discussed through the lens of issues management and crisis communication
theories. The chapter concludes by discussing implications for DCC research and offering
ideas for future investigations.

222

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
 Digital corporate communication and brandjacking and character assassination 223

DEFINITIONS OF BRANDJACKING AND PREVIOUS STUDIES

Brandjacking: Strategic Interception of Corporate Narratives

Brandjacking is typically associated with unauthorized use of a brand by impersonators

and fraudsters who take over campaigns and hashtags, pretending to be brand marketers
(Luoma-aho et al., 2018; Siano et al., 2021). In corporate contests, brandjacking can com-
plement obstructive marketing that seeks to reduce the operational capacity of competitors
through activities designed to prevent the distribution of a product by making it less valuable
or damaging it in some way (Hyslop, 2014).
Conceptually, brandjacking is linked to a body of literature studying the effects of negative
engagement. Lievonen and Luoma-aho (2015, p. 288) define negative engagement as an
“experience-based series of participative actions where negative issues concerning an organi-
zation or brand are publicly discussed” (see also Lievonen et al., 2018). Scholars have estab-
lished the relationship between negative engagement disposition and negative word-of-mouth
(Li et al., 2021; Naumann et al., 2017). A number of negative engagement practices have
been identified, including anger-driven activism (McColl-Kennedy et al., 2011; Romani et
al., 2015), online brand sabotage (Kähr et al., 2016), and anti-brand sites promoting negative
brand experiences (Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009; Popp et al., 2016).
Brandjacking occurs when an organization loses control of the conversation around its
reputation due to an external attempt to take over its narratives. Like humans, companies
construct their identities through narration (Törmälä and Gyrd-Jones, 2017). It takes time
to establish a seamless narrative strand through strategic storytelling. According to Cobb
(2013, p. 12), a narrative strand is not only “a foundation for identity”, but also a bully pulpit
for agenda-setting. It involves coherent plot sequencing and interpretation of world events,
the positioning of a protagonist, and the statement of an infallible value system, among other
things.
Positions are moral locations. We locate ourselves and others through first-order position-
ing (Harré and van Langenhove, 1991). Every actor strives to position himself/herself within
a storyline as positive and legitimate in relation to his/her audience while depicting other
actors as less perfect. In some cases, the original narrative is not taken at face value; instead,
it is challenged by counter-narratives (second-order positioning) advanced by another actor.
The goal is to disrupt the narrative strand, promote another storyline, and eventually hijack
the narrative agenda. This negative projection of a brand is intended to negatively affect the
relationship between a target organization and its stakeholders, thus enabling a subsequent
crisis of reputation.

CASE STUDY: BRANDJACKING AT MCDONALD’S

McDonald’s was one of the top ten most valuable US brands in 2021. In 2020, the McDonald’s
brand was worth over $46 billion, according to Forbes (Swant, 2020). The assessed value
of the brand was thus far greater than that of Starbucks, Pepsi, Walmart, and many other
companies. Using a different methodology, Interbrand placed it ninth globally and valued
the McDonald’s brand slightly lower, at almost $43 billion. Some commentators have even
linked the McDonald’s brand to conflict prevention. According to Friedman (2012), “No two

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
224 Handbook on digital corporate communication

countries that both had McDonald’s had fought a war against each other since each got its
McDonald’s.”1 Unsurprisingly, the value of the McDonald’s brand attracts many invested
hijackers, who seek to profit from its conquest.
Langley’s (2014) typology demonstrates that brandjacks can be accidental, driven by third
parties, or even built on a brand deliberately surrendering control. The most common type,
however, is an aggregation brandjack, which occurs when an organization faces an organized
group of unrelated stakeholders who unite in anti-brand efforts due to some shared issue with
the brand. Corporate inaction or slow action on internal issues caused by employee misconduct
or wrongdoing can easily be exploited by activists and critics seeking to provoke negative
responses from publics (Romani et al., 2015). Reputational attacks prove especially harmful
when motivated actors with malicious intent seek to cause large-scale reputational crises and
damage brands. The following cases are used to illustrate this point.
The first case focuses on a 2010 advertisement produced by the Physicians’ Committee
for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). The ad, which linked McDonald’s to heart disease, soon
became popular on YouTube, garnering over 1 million views in the first two months. Langley
(2014) describes the conflict between McDonald’s and PCRM as an ethics brandjack. This
type of brandjacking attempt centres on a clear conflict of ethical codes, in this case between
a burger restaurant and an organization that advocates for a vegan diet.
The McDonald’s corporation’s initial reaction to the ad was rather weak, calling it “unfair”
and “outrageous”. Then a franchise owner for the Tristate area hit back by establishing the
McDonald’s Nutrition Network (MNN), which engaged ‘mommy bloggers’ in an initiative
with a dietician advising on healthy diet choices. He offered usable guidance for how parents
could resort to fast food without feeling guilty. McDonald’s enhanced the power of the
network by organizing a meet-up of mommy bloggers to get them engaging with each other’s
content. MNN also provided seed money for local initiatives providing information about
nutrition. Applications for these grants reached almost 600 percent of the initial target, while
the launch of the initiative appeared in nearly 100 news items.
The second case is a June 2011 Twitter campaign that showed a photoshopped sign in
a McDonald’s window announcing that African American customers were to be charged
more. People tweeted the picture with the associated hashtag #SeriouslyMcDonalds, whether
because they believed it was real or because they found it amusing. McDonald’s responded
quickly, but with a light touch. It immediately tweeted that the photograph was a hoax,
but sent personal messages to only two of those retweeting the image. For several days,
the #SeriouslyMcDonalds hashtag trended on Twitter—and the issue persisted even after
McDonald’s had firmly responded that the sign was a hoax.
The third case focuses on the McDonald’s #MeetTheFarmers campaign. Following the
#SeriouslyMcDonalds hoax, McDonald’s wanted to reinforce the strengths of the brand
through storytelling. Specifically, it planned to solidify its base by inviting its customers to tell
their positive stories of visiting the fast food chain at #McDStories. While a large majority of
initial contributions were (apparently) positive, it was the negative ones that were more likely
to be shared and that therefore reached a wider audience. Critics were motivated to share
their negative experiences and promote related agendas around environmental issues, animal
welfare, nutrition, and a general rejection of capitalism.
The above examples demonstrate that a valuable brand is naturally a target for brandjacking.
The first case shows that these attempts can be handled with proper crisis management. PCRM
continues to target McDonald’s, but most of its YouTube videos have gained little to moderate

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
 Digital corporate communication and brandjacking and character assassination 225

traction. For example, two PCRM videos produced in 2018 and 2019 linking the McDonald’s
“Bacon Hour” promotion to colorectal cancer have only a few thousand views between them
(Physicians Committee, 2019). The second case suggests that a negative campaign goes viral
when the target is disliked by a significant group of people. Importantly, it keeps trending
when the target chooses an inadequate crisis response (Coombs, 2019). Finally, the third case
indicates that when an organization invites motivated customers to share their stories about
their brand, stakeholders with negative experiences are likely to hijack the media agenda
(BBC, 2014). This supports previous research stating that crowdsourcing campaigns are
vulnerable to brandjacking at times when negativity drives social media conversations (Gross
and Johnson, 2016). Interestingly, many McDonald’s customers did not see any need to share
positive content about the brand. This illustrates that McDonald’s has a transactional relation-
ship with its customers, not an aspirational one. In contrast to those who purchase expensive
cars, people who eat at McDonald’s are not purchasing a product with which they will have
a long-lasting relationship or about which they want to boast to their social networks.
The #SeriouslyMcDonalds hoax in the second case demonstrates that some brandjacks are
based on a smear effort to provoke social media outrage against the corporation. Next, we
address these deliberate efforts to destroy individual and corporate reputations.

DEFINITIONS OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION AND

PREVIOUS STUDIES

Character Assassination: Strategic Subversion of Corporate Reputation

Character assassination (CA) is both a process of communication (e.g., a smear campaign) and
the outcome of this process (e.g., a damaged reputation) (Samoilenko et al., 2020). Originally,
it was studied as a deliberate effort to destroy an individual’s reputation (Icks and Shiraev,
2014). Coombs and Holladay (2020) argued for a more inclusive view of CA by linking it
in a broader way to larger collectives such as corporations, since the latter’s credibility and
reputation can suffer the consequences of character attacks.
Contemporary CA scholars consider character a matter of public perception and a public
image of accepted ethical standards and social functions assigned to a public figure by various
publics at a given point of time (Shiraev et al., 2022). Character-based reputation is intrinsi-
cally contestable and can be depleted through misuse or offensive transgressions (Thompson,
2000). According to Benoit (2020), an attack on character asserts that the target possesses
a certain trait and argues that this trait is offensive. An accusation questioning the moral stand-
ing of a politician or a corporate leader is likely to trigger social evaluation and judgement of
his/her reputation.
A character assassin is an individual or a group of people who commit a character attack
with the goal of delegitimizing the target in the court of public opinion and undermining his/
her social standing. The attacker may be motivated by sheer malice, envy, revenge, or more
strategic goals, such as removing competitors. A politician attacks his/her rivals to make them
expend time, energy, and resources on a long-term power contest (Shiraev et al., 2022). A cor-
poration dealing with a whistle-blower issue may elect to torpedo the messenger’s credibility.
For example, cigarette maker Brown and Williamson retaliated against whistle-blower Jeffrey

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
226 Handbook on digital corporate communication

Wigand with a ruthless smear campaign painting him as a raging alcoholic, a wife-beater, and
a pathological liar (Brenner, 1996)
Three cardinal CA media strategies are provocation, contamination, and obliteration
attempts (Shiraev et al., 2022). Provocation strategies aim to intercept the media agenda and
create highly mediated scandals. They seek to amplify a hot-button issue to further activate
intense negative reactions from active publics toward the target. Contamination strategies
involve spreading falsehoods, rumours, and conspiracy theories. The idea is to insert a small
dose of misinformation about the target into a public consensus and gradually poison the
well in an attempt to prime the public to change their opinion of the target’s moral profile.
Attackers may infiltrate online communities or create echo chambers through algorithms in
order to incubate conspiracy theories or fake news stories (Wanless and Berk, 2020). Finally,
obliteration strategies aim to purge public memory of the target’s positive achievements and
accomplishments. Wikipedia has become a convenient place to edit out or falsify a person’s
early biography, as well as to forge evidence of an individual’s inappropriate social and polit-
ical ties (Burrell, 2013). These strategies often overlap when used in complicated scenarios,
triggering cascading network activation (Entman and Usher, 2018).
In their analysis of corporate CA, Coombs and Holladay (2020) see a CA event as a chal-
lenge crisis, which begins as a crisis threat manifested in public. They discuss two different
goals of invested audiences. Activist stakeholders mainly seek to change organizational prac-
tices. Angry stakeholders, on the other hand, seek revenge on an organization and sometimes
its complete reputational and even physical termination. If handled improperly, a challenge
crisis can easily escalate into a full-blown reputational crisis, with multiple negative implica-
tions for the entire organization.
The success or failure of a subversive activist campaign depends upon the material cost of
the requested changes and the fit between requested changes and the organization’s strategy.
It also depends on what is considered appropriate in a given society (legitimacy), the ability to
affect the behaviour of others (power), commitment to the issue, and time pressure (urgency)
(Mitchell et al., 1997). Research shows that a positive perception of CEOs’ character traits and
personal values could shield their organization from character attacks (Seiffert-Brockmann et
al., 2018). Conversely, CEOs who receive negative press coverage may contaminate a corpo-
rate reputation (Love et al., 2017).
Corporate issues are not static because they change characteristics and develop throughout
a business life cycle. A matter that was not an issue for a public at one point in time may
become a problem for the same public at another point. When “a public has an issue with an
organization, that organization has a problem” (Botan, 2018, p. 104). It can impact individuals
and organizations in many negative ways and eventually bring about a crisis of legitimacy for
them. The next case study illustrates this point.

CASE STUDY: CHARACTER ASSASSINATION AT BOEING

In July 2020, Niel Golightly resigned as Senior Vice President of Communications at the
Boeing Company after an employee complained about an article Golightly had written
more than 30 years earlier as a 29-year-old Navy pilot. Golightly’s article had appeared in
the December 1987 issue of Proceedings, a monthly publication of the United States Naval
Institute. The piece argued against women fighting in combat, a position supported by 56 per

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
 Digital corporate communication and brandjacking and character assassination 227

cent of Americans as recently as 1991 (Davis, 2013). The Department of Defense’s 1994 ban
on women serving in combat was lifted only in 2013.
Golightly responded to the complaint, saying that people should have room to mature
as their careers progressed without being judged on opinions they had held decades earlier
(Gross, 2020). One of his former colleagues spoke highly of his exemplary character and
applauded Boeing’s former communications chief for promoting female talent within the
team. In an email to his colleagues, Golightly stated that his former views did not reflect his
current opinions:

The article I wrote—with arguments I disowned soon after—makes for painful reading. Painful
because it is wrong. Painful because it is offensive to women. Painful because it reminds me of the
sharp and embarrassing education the uninformed and unformed ‘me’ of that time received as soon
as the piece appeared.

The situation with Golightly followed two other corporate crises at Boeing. The first was
a scandal after the company had dismissed several employees for racist behaviour (Gross,
2020). The second was backlash following the crashes, within five months, of two of Boeing
737 Max jets, killing 346 people and resulting in the planes’ subsequent grounding. This cost
Boeing $18 billion on top of the downturn in air travel caused by the Covid-19 pandemic
(Johnsson, 2020). Commenting on Golightly’s resignation, Boeing President and CEO Dave
Calhoun endorsed his decision to step down in the interest of the company and emphasized the
company’s “unrelenting commitment to diversity and inclusion in all its dimensions, and to
ensuring that all of our employees have an equal opportunity to contribute and excel”.
The public accusation of Niel Golightly and his subsequent resignation is an example of
character assassination via disgracing. When someone is disgraced, their good name is pub-
licly dragged through the mud and their distinguishing markers of honour and authority taken
away (Shiraev et al., 2022). The sociocultural approach to character assassination puts heavy
emphasis on cultural norms, conventions, and context (Samoilenko, 2021a). Golightly was
dismissed in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement, when public opinion began to impose
stricter sanctions on those individuals who have contravened current social norms and values.
Boeing President Dave Calhoun wrote to his employees that the company would “have zero
tolerance for bigotry of any kind” and would “redouble our determination to drive out behav-
iours that violate our values and injure our colleagues”.
The Golightly case is a scansis situation. Scansis represents the intersection of a scandal
and a crisis (Coombs and Tachkova, 2019). Its key characteristic is moral outrage, which
derives from the perceived violation of moral norms and feelings of injustice and exploitation.
The documented proof that a high-level management executive had once held misogynistic
views was out of step with current corporate interests and declared values. The moral outrage
in scansis situations creates a felt need for punishment. Golightly’s resignation fulfilled that
need. It was an appropriate crisis response that was expected to be reinforced with strategies
focused on bringing about structural changes in the company.

WHAT REMAINS THE SAME?

Social media create both opportunities and risks in crisis communication (Austin and Jin,
2018; Wendling et al., 2013). According to Luoma-aho (2015), the digital environment

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
228 Handbook on digital corporate communication

makes it easier for stakeholders to find each other and either rally behind or coalesce against
organizations. However, the dispersive nature of digital communication amplifies the initial
challenges posed by brandjacks and CA transgressions.
The McDonald’s cases teach us valuable lessons about the role of social media in brand-
jacking scenarios. In its response to the PCRM campaign, McDonald’s recognized the critical
importance of mommy bloggers as a channel to communicate with families. Social media
create opportunities when organizational messages support the implementation of core
branding strategies. The McDonald’s corporation’s first VP of Sustainability, Bob Langert,
advocated that businesses should engage with their strongest critics to find solutions that are
good for both business and society (Langert, 2019). As a result, there are now vegan options
at many McDonald’s franchises.
Another social media campaign run by McDonald’s engaged suppliers in talking about their
businesses. Flagship Farmers posted videos about McDonald’s farmers from all over the world
(Farmers Guide, 2020). In the videos, the farmers talk about the value to a small business
of being a McDonald’s supplier and how the corporation maintains rigorous standards that
suppliers have to meet. Quality and sustainability – values that perhaps few people would
spontaneously associate with the brand – are built into the narratives.
Social media can also create reputational risks when original campaign messages are taken
over by negative sentiments. Crowdsourcing and viral campaigns therefore run a continual
risk of backfiring. As the #MeetTheFarmers campaign demonstrates, having many customers
does not necessarily translate into positive advocacy for the brand. While customers may not
be ashamed to eat at McDonald’s, they are not especially motivated to talk on social media
about their fast-food habits.
The Boeing case supports the view of corporate CA as a challenge crisis that is associated
with multiple challenges to organizational legitimacy and social responsibility (Coombs and
Holladay, 2020). Ultimately, it creates situations in which stakeholders claim that an organi-
zation is acting in an irresponsible or immoral manner (Lerbinger, 1997). Repeated exposure
to negative issues associated with a brand may lead various publics to scrutinize the company
and its policies more closely (Coombs, 2019).
Boeing’s crisis response is typical for corporations. Boeing was running the risk of its
stakeholders deeming the company guilty by association for its relationship with a person with
toxic views. Organizations at risk of being held responsible commonly generate discourses
that attribute responsibility to the tainted employee and disassociate that individual from the
organization to avoid reputational penalties (Coombs, 2019). In some cases, organizations
may even lay the blame on members who are not directly responsible for the cause of moral
outrage if the latter are nonessential for corporate operations and their dismissal might help
deflect blame from the organization (Hargie et al., 2010; Roulet and Pichler, 2020).
Today, subversive social media campaigns are cocreational strategic enterprises that con-
sider the opinions and attitudes of members representing various groups and communities
on a range of different social issues, as well as their capacity for moral outrage (Samoilenko,
2021b). These campaigns also appeal to invested stakeholders (e.g., journalists, bloggers, and
competitors) who profit from the downfall of reputations. Lately, the digital corporate environ-
ment has been facing reputational challenges associated with digital activism, cancel culture,
and new misinformation production methods.

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
 Digital corporate communication and brandjacking and character assassination 229

WHAT IS CHANGING?

Digital activism is the trademark of our time. Highly networked activists use social media
to promote causes and put pressure on policymakers and industry leaders. Activist groups
organize protests, boycotts, and social movement campaigns to enforce justice in the form of
a public apology, legal proceedings, or revised policies (Boyd, 2012; Jasper and King, 2020).
Some social media platforms, like Twitter, have proved especially effective at this, being used
to build support groups around a hashtag, organize flash mobs, or call public figures to account
(Carney, 2016).
Social media is the vehicle of cancel culture (CC) (Bouvier and Machin, 2021). The process
of cancelling can be seen as an extreme form of CA where efforts are made not only to criticize
and stigmatize the target, but also to exclude them from public media arenas (Samoilenko and
Jasper, 2023). CC emerged in the context of deep ideological conflict and changing moral
standards that divided progressive liberals from social conservatives (Dimock and Wike,
2020). Accordingly, in the United States, there are two popular views of CC: it is perceived
either as a way to promote social justice or as a social media mobbing practice used to censor
and punish dissenting voices (Vogels et al., 2021).
Brought to prominence by #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter activists, CC put a spotlight on
multiple organizational issues associated with individuals and organizations deemed to rep-
resent sexist, racist, patriarchal, or hegemonic values (Mishan, 2020). Norris (2021) refers to
CC as “collective strategies by activists using social pressures to achieve cultural ostracism of
targets (someone or something) accused of offensive words or deeds”. Importantly, cancelling
is used by both left-wing and right-wing groups to bring pressure to bear on public figures and
corporate brands for actions perceived as morally offensive or dangerous (Miller-Idriss, 2021).
The #MeToo movement prompted thousands of organizations to adopt harassment policies
and enhance employee training (Boyle and Cucchiara, 2018). The prominence of the #MeToo
campaign and its global impact have made it more difficult for organizations dealing with sex
scandals to maintain control around the brand narrative. McDonald’s was just one of the many
companies to find itself caught up in the massive reckoning on sexual harassment triggered
by the movement. In 2019, Steve Easterbrook was fired as President and CEO of McDonald’s
over a consensual affair with a subordinate (Gelles and Creswell, 2021).
Activist groups that advocate boycotting countries on human rights grounds are raising
clear ethical issues for corporations. Pressure from public opinion and shaming strategies
applied by digital activists have prompted many Western companies to suspend operations
in Russia (Kulikov, 2022). In March 2022, Yale University published a widely circulated list
of companies that had pulled out of trading in Russia in response to the Ukraine invasion and
a second list of companies that continued to trade there. McDonald’s was on the original list of
companies trading in Russia, but announced within days that it was suspending its operations
throughout the country.2
Brandjacks and reputational attacks have further proliferated with the development of
automated systems circulating misinformation and synthetic media technologies used for
smear campaigns. Social bots spread materials from low-credibility sources and target users
with many followers through replies and mentions (Shao et al., 2018). Machine learning
frameworks can generate multiple synthetic instances of data, including fake photos, which
now appear in product reviews, on fake social media accounts, and on fake personal profiles
(Vaccari and Chadwick, 2020).

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
230 Handbook on digital corporate communication

Misinformation campaigns generated by artificial intelligence (AI) have become notorious

for their use of manipulated media of humans. Like traditional compromising videos, deep-
fakes exploit the topics of sex (cheating), drug use, inappropriate behaviour, and age-related
incompetency (Diakopoulos and Johnson, 2021; Samoilenko and Suvorova, 2023). There are
at least four major types of deepfake producers: legitimate actors (e.g., television companies),
communities of hobbyists, political players (e.g., foreign governments and activists), and
fraudsters (Westerlund, 2019). In 2021, a fake video featuring a doppelgänger of entrepreneur
and businessman Oleg Tinkov was posted on the fake Tinkoff Bonus website, which featured
a fake registration link. Fake Tinkov promised his clients to increase by 50 per cent whatever
amount a customer deposited in a newly opened investment account. This generous offer
aroused suspicion and was soon refuted by Tinkov’s press office (DFC, 2021).
In the context of digital activism and cancel culture, corporations are expected to constantly
change with the zeitgeist of a generation, new norms of social behaviour, and the technological
innovations embraced by their stakeholders (Schaeffer, 2019). These imperatives are critically
assessed next.

CRITICAL EXAMINATION

Emerging social trends are perceived as especially critical indicators of developing issues that
corporations need to watch for. According to Edelman’s Earned Brand Study (2018), most
consumers worldwide are “belief-driven buyers” who will not buy a product or go to a movie
if a company or a celebrity is silent on an issue of concern. In other words, 57 per cent of con-
sumers will buy a product line because of its political position. Most Americans believe that
corporations have a responsibility to support social movements related to the environment,
human rights, gender, and politics, among others (George-Parkin, 2019). Following this trend,
corporate CEOs endorse social causes to make their marketing efforts relevant to the defining
spirit of the time and appeal to their base and new stakeholders (Lagorio-Chafkin, 2018).
Consulting cultural intelligence experts and digital anthropologists helps organizations
understand explosive and immediate cultural shifts. This concerns new social trends challeng-
ing traditional norms and perceptions of gender, ethnicity, and sexuality and shaping cultural
tastes and attitudes over time (Powers, 2019). Continuously monitoring online conversations
helps DCC professionals gauge the volume and intensity of conversations about a topic
and align their strategies with public sentiment. Some Internet memes provide insights into
critical social issues (Seiffert-Brockmann et al., 2019). In 2021, the name “Karen” went viral
as a meme portraying an irritating white woman who uses her privilege to get her way by
speaking to police or a restaurant manager (Edwards, 2022). In 2020, the overall number of
new babies named Karen dropped nearly 26 per cent compared to the previous year (Ewing
and Banfield, 2021). The name also became a pejorative slang term for angry, entitled, and
often racist behaviour.
A corporate statement responding to current controversial issues presents an opportunity
to engage in an important social conversation and boost consumer loyalty (Cox, 2019).
Conversely, remaining quiet can be misconstrued by some stakeholders as a sign of conserv-
atism and a lack of courage. Equally, however, a corporate response that misses the mark can
tarnish a company’s image. In 2017, the Papa John’s brand took a massive hit during the NFL
Boycott scandal when CEO John Schnatter blamed its declining pizza sales on the league,

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
 Digital corporate communication and brandjacking and character assassination 231

saying the NFL was failing to handle the ongoing protests by football players who knelt during
the national anthem to protest racial injustice (Swan, 2018). Following massive outrage on
social media, Papa John’s stock lost nearly a third of its value.
In times of changing social standards, a corporate focus on issues management and social
corporate responsibility (CSR) is critical. Issues management involves proactive attempts by
corporations to identify and resolve high-priority issues that present immanent challenges to
organizations or their CEOs (Botan, 2018; Heath and Palenchar, 2008). The main goal is to
find and execute the strategy that will turn an identified issue from a reputational risk into
a managed issue before many people and groups have established their views and staked out
their positions (Coombs, 2019). Historical precedents teach us that failure to identify an issue,
as well as to listen to and timely respond to public concerns, leads to long-term financial and
reputational losses. In the 1990s, efforts led by Monsanto to bring genetically modified (GM)
foods to Europe encountered backlash from European publics, who accused GM companies of
‘playing God’ with nature and profiting from creating ‘Frankenstein foods’.
Corporate CSR programmes have become a strong criterion of corporate ethics. Research
has shown that companies that have effective CSR programmes are more profitable than those
that do not (Byus et al., 2010; Hategan et al., 2018). However, corporate CSR has also been
criticized for doing very little, being a PR tool subservient to the company’s main business, and
lacking sincerity and authenticity (Alhouti et al., 2016; Freitag, 2008; Skarmeas and Leonidou,
2013). Indeed, some companies have demonstrated a disparity between their CSR efforts and
other actions. For example, many corporations show support for LGBTQ+ communities and
at the same time donate to politicians who vote against gay rights (Spencer, 2021). Hence,
there is an emerging trend to embrace social corporate justice (SCJ) that focuses on the lived
experiences of groups perceived to be harmed or disadvantaged by society (Zheng, 2020).
Unfortunately, social movements and CSR programmes are not immune to brandjacking.
Social media campaigns become a recognizable brand when propelled by online communities
that help build a support base for the cause. The stronger the brand equity, the more it attracts
camp followers who see popular social causes as an opportunity to advance personal agendas
on the pretence of serving the cause (Béchet, 2022). The #MeToo campaign has faced crit-
icism for selectivity and witch-hunt tendencies. Some #MeToo critics said the campaign’s
original mission was being weaponized, trivialized, and refocused on matters of individual
accountability (Gessen, 2017; Willsher, 2018). Female survey respondents believed the cam-
paign caused new difficulties for men in workplace interactions while having little effect on
women’s career opportunities (Graf, 2018; North, 2018). When punishing scapegoats is gener-
ally seen as the solution to a complex issue, the concern is that there is less urgency to promote
real structural changes that would enhance women’s autonomy, fix broken legal systems, and
address institutionalized harassment.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This chapter discusses two related concepts: brandjacking and character assassination. Both
practices have become pervasive in corporate digital communication and have had a tremen-
dous impact on organizations and their stakeholders. In the context of digital activism, cancel
culture, and manipulated media, these practices are functional tools in the hands of subversive

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
232 Handbook on digital corporate communication

actors who seek to achieve goals ranging from settling personal scores to changing societal
power dynamics.
Brandjacking and CA campaigns are subversive in nature and cocreated strategically
together with multiple invested publics. Brandjacking and CA overlap in situations where
deceptive stratagems are employed in an effort to damage corporate reputations. The desired
outcome is the unfolding, in real time, of a scandal on social media. This type of reputa-
tional crisis is known for its speed and complexity, which impede risk prevention and crisis
management.
Staying in tune with developing social trends that challenge traditional norms of gender,
ethnicity, and sexuality allows corporate leaders to associate themselves with stakeholders
during crucial periods of social change. Internet memes poking fun at public characters often
provide critical insight into the importance of a social issue. This chapter calls for more cul-
tural synergy between corporations and various communities of interest, which are vocal and
uncompromising about their social identities.
The theoretical frameworks introduced in this chapter make a strong contribution to the
body of knowledge on digital corporate communication. The discussion of both concepts
through the lens of issues management and crisis communication theories reveals multiple
directions for further scholarly efforts. These conceptual frameworks have implications for
developing a new understanding of the causes and effects of moral outrage in response to
issues created by different interpretations of changing social norms. Another strong theoretical
marriage is that between the aforementioned concepts and situational crisis communication
theory (Coombs, 2019), which can provide valuable information on responding to reputational
crises and scandals caused by subversive campaigns. Future research should also address the
sociocultural issues that moderate the effects of brandjacking and character assassination.

NOTES
1. Though Friedman’s (2012) “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention” had previously been
criticized, including some examples predating 2012, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was possibly its
most dramatic refutation.
2. See https://​som​.yale​.edu/​story/​2022/​over​-600​-companies​-have​-withdrawn​-russia​-some​-remain.

REFERENCES
Alhouti, S., Johnson, C. M., and Holloway, B. B. (2016). Corporate social responsibility authenticity:
Investigating its antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1242–1249.
Austin, L. and Jin, Y. (2018). Social media and crisis communication. London: Routledge.
BBC (2014). NYPD Twitter campaign ‘backfires’ after hashtag hijacked. BBC, 23 April. https://​www​
.bbc​.com/​news/​technology​-27126041.
Béchet, N. (2022). The hashtag masquerade: Hijacking online social movement codes. L’Atelier, 20
January. https://​bit​.ly/​3kNd8Z7.
Benoit, W. L. (2020). Character assassination and persuasive attack on CBS’s Face the Nation. In S.
A. Samoilenko, M. Icks, J. Keohane, and E. Shiraev (eds.), The Routledge handbook of character
assassination and reputation management (pp. 295–306). New York: Routledge.
Botan, C. H. (2018). Strategic communication: Theory and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bouvier, G. and Machin, D. (2021). What gets lost in Twitter “cancel culture” hashtags? Discourse and
Society, 32(3), 307–327.

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
 Digital corporate communication and brandjacking and character assassination 233

Boyd, A. (2012). Beautiful trouble: A toolbox for revolution. New York: OR Books.
Boyle, D. and Cucchiara, A. (2018). Social movements and HR: The impact of #MeToo [White Paper].
Cornell Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. https://​bit​.ly/​31TbTRX.
Brenner, M. (1996). The man who knew too much. Vanity Fair, May. https://​bit​.ly/​3kYVzFv.
Burrell, I. (2013). Wikipedia names Texas PR firm over false manipulation of site entries. Independent,
20 November. https://​bit​.ly/​3aDwKHz.
Byus, K., Deis, D., and Ouyang, B. (2010). Doing well by doing good: Corporate social responsibility
and profitability. SAM – Advanced Management Journal, 75(1), 44–55.
Carney, N. (2016). All lives matter, but so does race: Black Lives Matter and the evolving role of social
media. Humanity & Society, 40(2), 180–199.
Chan-Olmsted, S. M. and Qin, Y. S. (2021). The impact of fake news on its sponsor’s brand trust.
Journal of Brand Strategy, 9(4), 446–465.
Cobb, S. (2013). Narrative braiding and the role of public officials in transforming the publics conflicts.
Narrative and Conflict: Explorations in Theory and Practice, 1(1), 4–30.
Coombs, W. T. (2019). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (5th
edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Coombs, W. T. and Holladay, S. (2020). Corporate character assassination and crisis communication. In
S. A. Samoilenko, M. Icks, J. Keohane, and E. Shiraev (eds.), The Routledge handbook of character
assassination and reputation management (pp. 225–235). New York: Routledge.
Coombs, W. T. and Tachkova, E. R. (2019). Scansis as a unique crisis type: Theoretical and practical
implications. Journal of Communication Management, 23(1), 72–88.
Cox, T. A. (2019). Corporate social responsibility in 2019: Social issues people expect businesses to
support. Clutch, 3 April. https://​bit​.ly/​3FafUji.
Davis, A. (2013). Americans favor allowing women in combat. Gallop, 25 January. https://​bit​.ly/​
3nhAsjT.
DFC (2021). Tinkov’s doppelganger invites to a fake site. Deepfake Challenge Association, 15
November. https://​deepfakechallenge​.com/​gb/​2021/​09/​16/​11906/​.
Diakopoulos, N. and Johnson, D. (2021). Anticipating and addressing the ethical implications of deep-
fakes in the context of elections. New Media & Society, 23(7), 2072–2098.
Dimock, M. and Wike, R. (2020). America is exceptional in the nature of its political divide. Pew
Research Center, 13 November. https://​pewrsr​.ch/​3CpSaWR.
Edelman (2018). Edelman earned brand [Report]. https://​bit​.ly/​3wcazW3.
Edwards, S. B. (2022). Cancel culture (Special reports). Minneapolis, MN: Abdo Publishing.
Entman, R. M. and Usher, N. (2018). Framing in a fractured democracy: Impacts of digital technology
on ideology, power and cascading network activation. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 298–308.
Ewing, M. and Banfield, A. (2021). ‘Bye, Karen’: Popularity of naming babies ‘Karen’ plummets in
2020 after moniker becomes a meme. NewsNation, 4 June. https://​bit​.ly/​37U1I31.
Farmers Guide (2020). McDonald’s extends commitment to local farming with new partnerships.
Farmers Guide, 6 October. https://​bit​.ly/​39KcDgp.
Freitag, A. R. (2008). Staking claim: Public relations lenders needed to shape CSR policy. Public
Relations Quarterly, 52(1), 37–40.
Friedman, T. L. (2012). The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. London: Picador.
Gelles, D. and Creswell, J. (2021). Former McDonald’s C.E.O. repays company $105 million. The New
York Times, 16 December. https://​nyti​.ms/​3F7ZkSw.
George-Parkin, H. (2019). Why companies need to get comfortable with taking a stand on social issues.
FN, 5 February. https://​bit​.ly/​3C7gdti.
Gessen, M. (2017). Al Franken’s resignation and the selective force of #MeToo. The New Yorker, 7
December. https://​bit​.ly/​3yk4zNh.
Graf, N. (2018). Sexual harassment at work in the era of #MeToo. Pew Research Center. https://​pewrsr​
.ch/​3w8A3TV.
Gross, J. (2020). Boeing communications chief resigns over 33-year-old article. The New York Times, 8
July. https://​nyti​.ms/​3H8Mi8z.
Gross, J. H. and Johnson, K. T. (2016). Twitter taunts and tirades: Negative campaigning in the age of
Trump. Political Science and Politics, 49(4), 748–754.

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
234 Handbook on digital corporate communication

Haller, A., Michael, H., and Seeber, L. (eds.) (2021). Scandology 3: Scandals in new media. Cham:
Springer.
Hargie, O., Stapleton, K., and Tourish, D. (2010). Interpretations of CEO public apologies for the
banking crisis: Attributions of blame and avoidance of responsibility. Organization, 17, 721–742.
Harré, R. and van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 21(4), 393–407.
Hategan, C.-D., Sirghi, N., Curea-Pitorac, R.-I., and Hategan, V.-P. (2018). Doing well or doing
good: The relationship between corporate social responsibility and profit in Romanian companies.
Sustainability, 10(4). https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su10041041.
Heath, R. L. and Palenchar, M. J. (2008). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy
challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hyslop, M. (2014). Obstructive marketing: Restricting distribution of products and services in the age of
asymmetric warfare. Farnham: Ashgate.
Icks, M. and Shiraev, E. (2014). Introduction. In M. Icks and E. Shiraev (eds.), Character assassination
throughout the ages (pp. 1–13). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jasper, J. and King, B. (2020). Protestors and their targets. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Johnsson, J. (2020). Boeing says total costs for 737 Max will surpass $18 billion. Bloomberg, 29 January.
https://​bloom​.bg/​3HAG4Or.
Kähr, A., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., and Hoyer, W. D. (2016). When hostile consumers wreak havoc
on your brand: The phenomenon of consumer brand sabotage. Journal of Marketing, 80(3), 25–41.
Krishnamurthy, S. and Kucuk, S. U. (2009). Anti-branding on the Internet. Journal of Business Research,
62, 1119–1126.
Kulikov, V. (2022). #BUSINESS: “Stand on the right side of history” – Enterprises and society in
the Russia-Ukraine war. The Leibniz Institute for East and Southeast European Studies. https://​
ukraine2022​.ios​-regensburg​.de/​business01/​.
Lagorio-Chafkin, C. (2018). This billion-dollar founder says hiring refugees isn’t a political act. INC.
https://​bit​.ly/​3qH7LPm.
Langert, B. (2019). The business case for working with your toughest critics [Video]. TED Summit 2019.
https://​bit​.ly/​3Luw5vz.
Langley, Q. (2014). Brandjack: How your reputation is at risk from brand pirates and what to do about
it. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lerbinger, O. (1997). The crisis manager: Facing risk and responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Li, L. P., Frethey-Bentham, C., Juric, B., and Brodie, R. J. (2021). A negative actor engagement scale
for online knowledge-sharing platforms. Australasian Marketing Journal. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​
18393349211022044.
Lievonen, M. and Luoma-aho, V. (2015). Ethical hateholders and negative engagement: A challenge
for organizational communication. In A. Catellani, A. Zerfass, and R. Tench (eds.), Communication
ethics in a connected world (pp. 285–304). Brussels: Peter Lang.
Lievonen, M., Luoma-aho, V., and Bowden, J. (2018). Negative engagement. In K. Johnston and M.
Taylor (eds.), The handbook of communication engagement (pp. 531–548). New York: Wiley.
Love, G. E., Lim, J., and Bednar, M. K. (2017). The face of the firm: The influence of CEOs on corporate
reputation. American Management Journal, 60, 1462–1481.
Luoma-aho, V. (2015). Understanding stakeholder engagement: Faith-holders, hateholders & fakehold-
ers. RJ-IPR: Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 2(1). http://​www​.instituteforpr​
.org/​understanding​-stakeholder​-engagement​-fai.
Luoma-aho, V., Virolainen, M., Lievonen, M., and Halff, G. (2018). Brand hijacked: Why campaigns
and hashtags are taken over by audiences. In A. V. Laskin (ed.), Social, mobile, and emerging media
around the world: Communication case studies (pp. 57–68). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Sparks, B. A., and Nguyen, D. T. (2011). Customer’s angry voice: Targeting
employees or the organization? Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 707–713.
Miller-Idriss, C. (2021). Hate in the homeland: The new global far right. Hoboken, NJ. Wiley.
Mishan, L. (2020). The long and tortured history of cancel culture. The New York Times, 3 December.
https://​nyti​.ms/​3FyWmGD.

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
 Digital corporate communication and brandjacking and character assassination 235

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and
salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review,
22(4), 853–886.
Naumann, K., Bowden, J., and Gabbott, M. (2017). A multi-valenced perspective on consumer engage-
ment within a social service. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 25(2), 171–188.
Norris, P. (2021). Cancel culture: Myth or reality? Political Studies. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​
00323217211037023.
North, A. (2018). Why women are worried about #MeToo. Vox, 5 April. https://​bit​.ly/​3sgz0A8.
Physicians Committee (2019). Doctors against McDonald’s Bacon Hour [Video]. YouTube. https://​
www​.youtube​.com/​watch​?v​=​Td3T573yW88.
Popp, B., Germelmann, C. C., and Jung, B. (2016). We love to hate them! Social media-based anti-brand
communities in professional football. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship,
17(4), 349–367.
Powers, D. (2019). On trend: The business of forecasting the future. Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
Romani, S., Grappi, S., Zarantonello, L., and Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). The revenge of the consumer! How
brand moral violations lead to consumer anti-brand activism. Journal of Brand Management, 22,
658–672.
Roulet, T. J. and Pichler, R. (2020). Blame game theory: Scapegoating, whistleblowing and discursive
struggles following accusations of organizational misconduct. Organization Theory. https://​doi​.org/​
10​.1177/​263178772097519.
Samoilenko, S. A. (2021a). Character assassination: The sociocultural perspective. Journal of Applied
Social Theory, 1(3), 186–205.
Samoilenko, S. A. (2021b). The cocreational view of character assassination. In C. H. Botan (ed.), The
handbook of strategic communication (pp. 76–90). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Samoilenko, S. A., Icks, M., Keohane, J., and Shiraev, E. (eds.) (2020). The Routledge handbook of
character assassination and reputation management. New York: Routledge.
Samoilenko, S. A. and Jasper, J. M. (2023). The implications of character assassination and cancel
culture for public relations theory. In C. Botan and E. J. Sommerfeldt (eds.), Public relations theory
III (pp. 452–469). New York: Routledge.
Samoilenko, S. A. and Suvorova, I. (2023). Artificial intelligence and deepfakes in strategic deception
campaigns: The U.S. and Russian experiences. In E. Pashentsev (ed.), The Palgrave handbook of
malicious use of AI and psychological security. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schaeffer, L. (2019). Consumers expect the brands they support to be socially responsible. Business
Wire, 2 October. https://​bwnews​.pr/​3ncNbV2.
Seiffert-Brockmann, J., Diehl, T., and Dobusch, L. (2019). Memes as games: The evolution of a digital
discourse online. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2862–2879.
Seiffert-Brockmann, J., Einwiller, S., and Stranzl, J. (2018). Character assassination of CEOs in crises:
Questioning CEOs’ character and values in corporate crises. European Journal of Communication,
33(4), 413–429.
Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Varol, O., Yang, K., Flammini, A., and Menczer, F. (2018). The spread
of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications, 9, 4787. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1038/​
s41467​-018​-06930​-7.
Shiraev, E., Keohane, J., Icks, M., and Samoilenko, S. A. (2022). Character assassination and reputation
management: Theory and applications. London: Routledge.
Siano, A., Confetto, M. G., Vollero, A., and Covucci, C. (2021). Redefining brand hijacking from
a non-collaborative brand co-creation perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(1),
110–126.
Skarmeas, D. and Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepti-
cism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831–1838.
Spencer, C. (2021). CVS, AT&T, Comcast and others donated to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians, new study
finds. The Hill, 15 June. https://​bit​.ly/​3R8G25d.
Swan, A. (2018). The numbers behind Papa John’s brand devastation. Forbes, 25 July. https://​bit​.ly/​
3nkYlHj.
Swant, M. (2020). The world’s most valuable brands. Forbes. https://​bit​.ly/​3xYTrFH.

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
 236 Handbook on digital corporate communication

Thompson, J. B. (2000). Political scandal: Power and visibility in the media age. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Törmälä, M. and Gyrd-Jones, R. I. (2017). Development of new B2B venture corporate brand identity:
A narrative performance approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 65, 76–85.
Vaccari, C. and Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic
political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media & Society. https://​doi​.org/​
10​.1177/​205630512090340.
Vogels, E. A., Anderson, M., Porteus, M., et al. (2021). Americans and ‘cancel culture’: Where some
see calls for accountability, others see censorship, punishment. Pew Research Center. https://​pewrsr​
.ch/​3Dh4YiZ.
Wanless, A. and Berk, M. (2020). The audience is the amplifier: Participatory propaganda. In P. Baines,
N. O’Shaughnessy, and N. Snow (eds.), The SAGE handbook of propaganda (pp. 85–104). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wendling, C., Radisch, J., and Jacobzone, S. (2013). The use of social media in risk and crisis com-
munication. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 24, 1–42. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1787/​
5k3v01fskp9s​-en.
Westerlund, M. (2019). The emergence of deepfake technology: A review. Technology Innovation
Management Review, 9(11), 40–53.
Willsher, K. (2018). Catherine Deneuve’s claim of #MeToo witch-hunt sparks backlash. The Guardian,
10 January. https://​bit​.ly/​3KKP97y.
Zheng, L. (2020). We’re entering the age of corporate social justice. Harvard Business Review, 15 June.
https://​bit​.ly/​3vlUXzH.

Sergei A. Samoilenko and Quentin Langley - 9781802201963

Downloaded from PubFactory at 06/19/2023 01:26:04PM
via communal account
View publication stats