This research is to figure out the optimal way the company can apply regarding to the

public relation. The research has been conducted in the context of Vietnam market where THP
company has witnessed as the imperial case of dealing with the scandals. Throughout, it tries to
point out which activities that company can do for neutralizing the negative publicity. For
example, on one hand, it can refuse directly the negative information or even deny any
responsibility for the wrongdoings. The point is to strive to get the community out of the
negative information about the firm. In the other hand, the company can distract the customer by
introducing the second object. It might associate with the company itself or the targeted opponent
companies. The fundamental of doing these activities is that refuting or evading the negative
ineffectively mitigate the negative publicity, even exacerbate the extent of harmfulness to the
brand. Besides, the related positive association as the piece of information provided by company
is considered as the manipulated action of company. Thus, it is untruthful and inconsistent as
well.
By these reasons, the first hypothesis has been drawn up
H1a. The presentation of unrelated positive publicity about the target brand (THP)
following initial negative information and a request to boycott THP will significantly
reduce respondents' likelihood to forgo the target brand (THP). THP (negative corporate
information about THP, the target brand) /BC (boycott THP request) and +THPu (unrelated
positive corporate information about THP, the target brand).

Although 81% customer perceived egregiousness and disapproval in the company

actions, just 16% of a whole will participate a boycott. It is because of desire to promote change,
self-enhancement, rationalizations for not boycotting and the costs to the boycott of boycott

participation as well. That means that the provision of unrelated positive information will
successfully diminish the negative effect of negative publicity. In this sense, this is also efficient
as the consumer compares the cost of boycott with the benefits they and their community
receive.
H1b. This technique (used in H1a) will also be effective in reducing the likelihood of
forgoing consumption when consumers perceive no direction to act; that is, in a negative
publicity scenario rather than a boycott situation THP/ND (no direction, i.e., no request to
boycott) and +THPu.
Another way to overcome the cirsis is create the smear campaign As such, the company
employs the negative information about a close substitute in the hope of counteracting the
effects of negative information about its own brand.

H2a. The provision of negative corporate-related publicity about the corporate actions
of a close substitute (Coco-Cola) following initial negative information about the target brand
(THP) and a request to boycott THP will significantly reduce respondents' likelihood of
forgoing the target product (THP). THP/BC and CC (negative corporate information
about Coco-Cola, the substitute brand).
H2b. The technique used in H2a will be less effective in reducing the likelihood of
forgoing consuming when consumers receive no direction for their action (compared to a
directive on how to behave), that is, in a negative publicity scenario rather than a boycott
situation. THP/ND and CC.

The product - the essence of any firm owning is what people will have it at first, before
the other ones follow. Thus, the negative information about the closed product will cause the
deferment of boycott participation resulting in the individual scarifying. That is why it comes up
with the additional hypothesis.
H3. The provision of negative product-related publicity about a close substitute product
(Coca-Cola) following the initial negative information about the target brand (THP) and a
request to boycott THP will not significantly reduce the likelihood of a respondent to forgo
the target brand (THP). THP/BC and CP (negative product-related information about
Coca-Cola, the substitute brand).