오늘날 브랜드 자산은 기업들에게 있어 매우 중요한 것으로 인식되고 있으며, 기업들은 이러한 브랜드 자산 구축에 많은 비용과 노력을 기울이고 있다. 그러나 브랜드는 항상 부정적 정보에 노출되어 소비자들의 호의적인 태도와 브랜드의 자산적 가치를 상실할 수 있는 위기 상황에 처할 가능성이 있기 때문에, 이러한 부정적 정보가 미치는 영향이나 기업의 대응 방안에 대한 연구가 증가하고 있다. 이에 본 연구에서는 브랜드 위기 상황에서 해당 사건의 책임을 규명하는 정보의 주체가 소비자의 대상 브랜드에 대한 태도에 미치는 영향을 정보의 내용 및 문제의 심각성이라는 조절변수의 효과와 더불어 살펴보았다. 연구 결과, 책임규명 정보가 기업은 잘못한 것이 없다는 긍정적인 내용일 경우, 기업이 스스로 주체가 되어 그 정보를 제공하는 것 보다는 중립자가 정보제공의 주체가 되는 것이 소비자의 브랜드 태도를 더 긍정적으로 변화시키는 것으로 나타났다. 반면 책임규명 정보가 기업이 잘못했다는 부정적인 내용일 경우, 중립자가 주체가 되어 그 정보를 제공하는 것 보다는 기업이 스스로 주체가 되는 것이 소비자의 브랜드 태도를 더 긍정적으로 변화시키는 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 문제의 심각성이 낮고 책임규명 정보의 내용이 기업은 잘못한 것이 없다는 긍정적인 경우, 기업과 중립자 두 정보 주체에 따른 소비자의 브랜드 태도 변화는 차이를 보이지 않게 나타나 책임규명의 주체, 정보의 내용, 그리고 문제의 심각성이라는 세 변수 간에 삼원상호작용 효과가 존재함을 알 수 있었다. 마지막으로 본 연구의 이론적 및 실무적 시사점, 그리고 한계점 및 향후 연구방안에 대해 논의하였다.

Brand has been regarded as one of the most important assets for a company, and a lot of efforts has been put into building brand equity. However, there always exists a possibility for a brand to be exposed to a negative accident or information and thus get its equity value severely damaged. Actually, such recent accidents as razor blades found in Dongwon tuna cans or garbage found in CJ dumplings severely damaged brand reputation of the brands. Moreover, the rapid diffusion and increased use of internet leads to faster and more accurate communication of such information about a brand or a company compared to the past resulting in greater importance of effectively managing brand crisis. By the way, a brand crisis does not always come from the company's fault. It may occur even though it is not clear whether the company is responsible for it or not as we can see in the case of Firestone's crisis. Thus, a brand crisis can be defined as a situation in which a brand's reputation can be damaged due to its association with negative information regardless of who causes the crisis. Accordingly, many researchers recently are interested in studying the effects of such negative information on consumer brand evaluation and how to cope with the brand crisis effectively. The present research proposes that consumers' brand attitudes toward a brand crisis can vary depending on whether the information about the crisis is provided by the company itself or a third party organization. This study investigates the differential effects of information provider - who announces the truth of a brand crisis - on consumers' brand attitudes and the moderating effects of the valence of information (negative versus positive information - whether the company is actually responsible for the crisis or not) and the severity of brand crisis (severe versus not severe accident). The results show that, first, in the case of positive information which says the company is not responsible for the crisis, consumers' brand attitudes become more favorable when a third party organization announces the information than when the company itself does. Second, in the case of negative information which says the company causes the crisis, consumers' brand attitudes become more favorable when the company itself announces the information than when a third party organization does. Lastly, when the information is positive and the problem is not severe, there turns out to be no significant difference whether the information provider is the company or a third party organization. The theoretical as well as managerial implications are then discussed.

Brand has been regarded as one of the most important assets for a company, and a lot of efforts has been put into building brand equity. However, there always exists a possibility for a brand to be exposed to a negative accident or information and thus get its equity value severely damaged. Actually, such recent accidents as razor blades found in Dongwon tuna cans or garbage found in CJ dumplings severely damaged brand reputation of the brands. Moreover, the rapid diffusion and increased use of internet leads to faster and more accurate communication of such information about a brand or a company compared to the past resulting in greater importance of effectively managing brand crisis. By the way, a brand crisis does not always come from the company's fault. It may occur even though it is not clear whether the company is responsible for it or not as we can see in the case of Firestone's crisis. Thus, a brand crisis can be defined as a situation in which a brand's reputation can be damaged due to its association with negative information regardless of who causes the crisis. Accordingly, many researchers recently are interested in studying the effects of such negative information on consumer brand evaluation and how to cope with the brand crisis effectively. The present research proposes that consumers' brand attitudes toward a brand crisis can vary depending on whether the information about the crisis is provided by the company itself or a third party organization. This study investigates the differential effects of information provider - who announces the truth of a brand crisis - on consumers' brand attitudes and the moderating effects of the valence of information (negative versus positive information - whether the company is actually responsible for the crisis or not) and the severity of brand crisis (severe versus not severe accident). The results show that, first, in the case of positive information which says the company is not responsible for the crisis, consumers' brand attitudes become more favorable when a third party organization announces the information than when the company itself does. Second, in the case of negative information which says the company causes the crisis, consumers' brand attitudes become more favorable when the company itself announces the information than when a third party organization does. Lastly, when the information is positive and the problem is not severe, there turns out to be no significant difference whether the information provider is the company or a third party organization. The theoretical as well as managerial implications are then discussed.

brand crisis, information provider, the valence of information, severity of brand crisis, consumer's brand attitudes