Repair Discourse Theory (IRT). Benoit said, “Image is essential to organizations" (1997, p. 177). IRT is relevant for the Las Vegas Mass Shooting case because Benoit claims that organizations are often held liable by the public for crises. “The important point is not whether the business in fact is responsible for the offensive act, but whether the firm is thought to be responsible for it by the relevant audience” (Benoit, 1997, p. 178). While the actual shooting was carried out by Paddock, Mandalay Bay Resort is held liable in public opinion because of its obvious connection to the mass shooting. IRT focuses on message options for organizations to employ during times of crisis. IRT offers five broad categories of strategies to use. These categories are not mutually exclusive, and organizations can use multiple of them during its response. The five categories are denial, evasion of responsibility, reducing offensiveness of event, corrective action, and mortification. Mandalay Bay Resort used three of the five strategies for image restoration. Mandalay Bay Resort attempted to deny the crisis by “shifting the blame,” a type of denial in IRT. Shifting the blame stresses that “another person or organization is actually responsible for the offensive act” (Benoit, 1997, p. 180). Mandalay Bay Resort also used two tactics to reduce offensiveness. It used bolstering in an effort to “strengthen the audience’s positive feelings toward itself, in order to offset the negative feelings connected with the wrongful act” (Benoit 1997, p. 180). Additionally, it used compensation to reduce offensiveness by aiding the victims. The final strategy from IRT used by Mandalay Bay Resort was corrective action. “This action can take the form of restoring the state of affairs existing before the offensive action, and/or promising to prevent the recurrence of the offensive act” (Benoit, 1997, p. 181). The two strategies not used by Mandalay Bay Resort included evading responsibility and mortification. A full timeline of Mandalay Bay Resort’s statements and strategies used can be seen in Table 1 below.
by MGM Resorts on October 15, 2017 (Lupiani, 2017). The commercial was set to the tune of “This Little Light of Mine” by Odetta and featured multiple MGM Resorts properties in Las Vegas. While it never mentions the shooting, it was a clear marketing response to the mass shooting. Another video was released on social media ahead of this commercial featuring Twitter users posting about returning to Las Vegas. While some still viewed the hashtag campaign and advertisements released by MGM Resorts to be genuine and in good taste, many others saw it as MGM Resorts capitalizing on the mass shooting. MGM Resorts chief experience and marketing officer Lili Tomovich released a statement defending the spot and claimed the response had been “overwhelmingly positive” and “reinforces our promise to the world that we’ll remain strong and united in the face of adversity” (Richards, 2017). However, many people took to social media to express opinions that were not overwhelmingly positive. Ignoring the negative feedback from the public surrounding the MGM Resorts’ new marketing campaign does not help Mandalay Bay Resort or MGM Resorts repair their damaged image. Benoit explains that bolstering will only strengthen an organization’s image and “offset damage to its reputation” if it is accepted by the public (2017, p. 180). Since many people in the public are not accepting the bolstering efforts, a large portion of MGM Resorts’ communication is not helping, but possibly even further damaging its already tattered image. While not proven, a possible explanation for the lack of mortification shown by Mandalay Bay Resort could be rooted in legal liability. Benoit recognized this conflict of interest in his theory. Benoit stated, “image Restoration concerns may, admittedly, conflict with a desire to avoid lawsuits, and the firm must decide whether it is more important to restore its image or avoid litigation” (1997, p. 183-4). There is a difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion. While Mandalay Bay Resort may be trying to protect itself in a court of law, it