After the storm comes the sun: A rhetorical analysis of Melbourne Storm's advertising campaigns after the 2010 salary cap scandal

• Author: Angelique Nairn,Frances Nelson,Rosser Johnson
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1990
• Date: 01 February 2020

ACADEMIC PAPER

After the storm comes the sun: A rhetorical analysis of

Melbourne Storm's advertising campaigns after the 2010 salary

cap scandal

Angelique Nairn |Frances Nelson |Rosser Johnson

Department of Communication Studies,

Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,

New Zealand

Correspondence

Angelique Nairn, Department of

Communication Studies, Auckland University

of Technology, Wellesley Street, Auckland

1142, New Zealand.

Email: angelique.nairn@aut.ac.nz

One of the most common motifs surrounding sports, sports teams, and sports stars

is “the scandal.”One typifying feature of mediated scandals is the ease with which

they can be presented as, or massaged into, an unfolding narrative. Although some

research has been conducted into the initial stages of these narratives, there is sig-

nificantly less that focusses on the ways in which the “transgressor”can be rehabil-

itated in a separate but linked part of that overarching story. This article addresses

that gap by analysing two television commercials that significantly assisted the

Melbourne Storm rugby league franchise in encouraging and maintaining identifica-

tion and, coterminously, overcoming disidentification with its membership. Further-

more, we contend that the Melbourne Storm purposively used rhetorical strategies

to emphasise the socially desirable aspects of its identity to repair damage done to

its organisational image. Using rhetorical analysis, the article explicates the various

techniques through which this was accomplished.

1|INTRODUCTION

According to Turner (1974), a public scandal is akin to a social drama:

It entails a breach of group or societal norms, which can develop into

a public crisis,

1

where conflicts and tensions become obvious and

people start to choose sides. In overcoming the scandal/crisis, an

organisation inevitably engages in redressive action, which, according

to Sims (2009), is necessary in both the short and long terms in order

to rebuild a tarnished reputation. Benoit (1997), Commbs (1998);

Coombs (2007), Coombs and Holladay (2008), and De Maria (2010)

have suggested that when organisations are involved in scandals or

crises, their immediate response is to deny and diminish the situation,

followed by the secondary response of rebuilding.

2

However, the sec-

ondary response of rebuilding, as Gaines‐Ross (2008) argues, can take

up to 3.5 years, and according to Sims (2009), long‐term efforts at

rebuilding need to be multifaceted. The purpose of this paper is to

explore how an organisation, in the wake of a public scandal, attempts

to overcome the disidentification of its members and, simultaneously,

encourages and maintains existing identification.

2|BACKGROUND

By the close of business on April 22, 2010, National Rugby League

(NRL) CEO David Gallop had announced that the Melbourne Storm

1

To clarify, scandals and crises are not synonymous in the scholarship. According to De Maria

(2010, p. 69), “an organization can be in crisis but not scandalized and an organization can be

scandalized without (any longer) being in crisis.”For the purpose of this paper, we believe the

Melbourne Storm to have been scandalized, which produced a crisis and threat to the organi-

zation's survival.

2

There are variations throughout the scholarship on what these strategies entail and their

likelihood of success. For example, Benoit (1997) refers to five strategies including denial,

evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification. However,

Coombs (2007), as part of his situational crisis communicationtheory, identifies seven primary

crisis response strategies (attack the accuser, denial, scapegoat, excuse, justify, compensate,

and apologise) and three secondary crisis response strategies (reminder, ingratiation, and

victimage).

Received: 24 April 2019 Accepted: 17 May 2019

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1990

J Public Affairs. 2020;20:e1990.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1990

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of11