| Course | D649 Crisis Communication |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 1 |
| Paper type | Crisis response analysis |
| Length | About 1,200 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | BS Communications |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D649 Task 1
Four Times the Usual Bill: A Crisis Response Analysis of a Composite Rural Electric Cooperative's Billing System Failure, Stage by Stage
Student Name
School of Business, Western Governors University
D649: Crisis Communication, Task 1
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Four Times the Usual Bill: A Crisis Response Analysis of a Composite Rural Electric Cooperative's Billing System Failure, Stage by Stage
Introduction
Prairie Ridge Electric Cooperative, a composite member-owned utility serving about 41,000 accounts across eight rural Iowa counties, replaced its 20-year-old billing software over the New Year holiday. On January 8, roughly 9,600 members received bills based on estimated rather than metered usage, many for three to four times their normal amount. About 3,100 of those members paid by automatic bank draft, and the full inflated amount left their accounts two days later. Over the following three weeks the cooperative's response moved from a short technical notice to a public apology, refunds and a change in leadership of its billing department.
This paper analyzes that response. It describes what happened, classifies the crisis using situational crisis communication theory, evaluates the cooperative's communication in each stage of the crisis, and draws lessons that apply to any organization whose error falls directly on the people it serves.
What Happened
The first signs appeared before any bill went out. During testing in December, the software vendor flagged that meter readings from about a quarter of accounts were not importing correctly and recommended delaying the switch. Cooperative managers decided to go ahead, planning to correct the readings in the first billing cycle. The correction did not happen in time.
On January 9, members began posting photos of their bills in two large county community groups on Facebook. One post from a retired farmer showing a $1,140 bill for a small house, against a usual $290, was shared more than 2,000 times. By that evening a regional television station was calling the cooperative for comment. The cooperative's first public statement came at 4 p.m. on January 10, roughly 30 hours after the first post. It read, in part, that some members may have received a statement reflecting estimated consumption and that the cooperative was reviewing the matter. It did not say how many members were affected, whether bank drafts would be stopped, or what members should do.
Autopay drafts went through on January 10 and 11. Several members reported overdraft fees from their banks. On January 12, after a local newspaper reported the vendor's December warning, the cooperative's chief executive posted a two-minute video apologizing, confirming the number of affected accounts, and promising that inflated drafts would be refunded within five business days and overdraft fees reimbursed. Refunds were completed by January 19. A member forum was held on January 26, and the board announced an independent review of the conversion.
Classifying the Crisis
Situational crisis communication theory holds that the right response depends on how much responsibility stakeholders assign to the organization. Coombs (2007) groups crises into three clusters: a victim cluster, where the organization is also harmed and attributions are weak; an accidental cluster, where the event is unintentional, including technical-error accidents; and a preventable cluster, where the organization knowingly placed people at risk or human error caused harm. Attributions rise further when the organization has a history of similar crises or a poor prior reputation.
At first, members could reasonably see the billing failure as a technical-error accident. New software fails, and a cooperative with a good service record might have received the benefit of the doubt. That changed on January 12, when the vendor's warning became public. Once members learned that managers had been told about the import problem and went ahead anyway, the crisis moved into the preventable cluster. Coombs (2007) recommends that preventable crises be met with rebuild strategies, meaning apology and compensation, because denial or minimizing responses increase anger when responsibility is high. The classification explains why the first statement failed and why the apology worked better, even though it came late.
Evaluating the Response by Stage
Precrisis. The best chance to prevent harm came in December. A decision to delay the conversion would have cost the cooperative a month of parallel systems. Even if managers went ahead, a precrisis message to members warning that January bills might be delayed or estimated, with autopay held for one cycle, would have reduced both the financial harm and the sense of betrayal. Seeger (2006) lists preparation and pre-event planning among the core best practices of crisis communication; here, the risk was known and no plan existed for telling members.
Acute crisis. The first statement had three weaknesses. It was slow: 30 hours passed while member posts defined the story. It was vague: the phrase statement reflecting estimated consumption told members nothing they could act on. And it omitted the most urgent information, that bank drafts were about to go through. Seeger (2006) emphasizes being accessible to the media, communicating with honesty and openness, and meeting the needs of the public for information they can use. Members needed to know whether to call their banks; the statement did not say.
The chief executive's video on January 12 was the turning point. It named the number of affected accounts, took responsibility without blaming the vendor, and offered specific compensation with a date. Benoit (1997) describes corrective action and mortification, a plain admission and apology, as the image repair strategies most likely to restore credibility when an organization is clearly at fault. The video used both. Its weakness was timing; by the time it appeared, drafts had cleared and overdraft fees had been charged.
Postcrisis. Refunds arrived on the promised date, which mattered for trust. The member forum and independent review were appropriate for a member-owned organization whose owners expect a voice. The cooperative did, however, let three weeks pass before explaining what would change, and its first update on the review appeared only on its website, which few rural members visit.
Channels and Audiences
Prairie Ridge's members are older than the state average, many live on farms with limited broadband, and local radio remains a primary news source. The cooperative relied on its website and Facebook page. The members most harmed by drafts, including retirees on fixed incomes, were among the least likely to see either. Text alerts through the outage notification system, which already had 22,000 enrolled numbers, would have reached most affected households within an hour. Employees, especially the customer service staff who took more than 5,000 calls in three days, received no internal briefing until January 11 and were answering calls with no script.
Lessons
Four lessons follow. First, when an organization knows of a risk before a crisis, its responsibility is judged by what it knew, so precrisis decisions are communication decisions. Second, the first message should tell people what to do, not only what the organization is reviewing. Third, when responsibility is high, apology and compensation should come early, not after a news story forces them. Fourth, the channel plan must match the audience; a message that the most affected members never see has not been delivered.
Conclusion
Prairie Ridge's billing failure began as a technical problem and became a trust problem because of a known risk, a slow and vague first statement, and a channel mix that missed its most vulnerable members. Its later apology, prompt refunds and member forum show what a rebuild response can achieve. Classified correctly from the start, the crisis called for that response within hours, not days.
References
Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0
Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880600769944
What the D649 Task 1 instructions ask
The first D649 task asks you to analyze a crisis response, not to write one. Your instructions generally want a description of the crisis and the organization's response, a classification of the crisis using an accepted framework, an evaluation of the messages and their timing, and lessons for future practice. Many versions ask you to consider stakeholders and channels as well. You can use a published case or a realistic scenario, but the facts need dates, figures and quoted or paraphrased statements, since the analysis depends on them. The task rewards applying theory to specifics. Students who summarize a news story and then add general advice about transparency are usually asked to revise, because the rubric expects the crisis to be classified and each response judged against that classification.
How this D649 Task 1 example is built
The analysis introduces the cooperative and the failure in one paragraph, then tells the story in order: the vendor's December warning, the bills of January 8, the viral post, the vague statement, the bank drafts, the chief executive's video and the refunds. A classification section explains the three crisis clusters and argues that responsibility rose once members learned about the warning. The evaluation then moves stage by stage, precrisis, acute and postcrisis, testing each message against best practices and image repair strategies. A separate section on channels and audiences shows how a website and Facebook missed older rural members and how unbriefed call center staff took 5,000 calls. Four lessons follow, each stated as a rule another organization could apply, and a short conclusion ties them together.
Where the D649 Task 1 rubric puts the marks
Evaluators mark each D649 Task 1 aspect competent, approaching competence or not evident. The description aspect checks that the crisis is explained clearly enough to analyze, with its timeline and stakeholders. The classification aspect is central: you must name a framework and show where the crisis fits and why, including any change as facts emerge. Response aspects ask you to evaluate what the organization said and did, how fast and through which channels, using criteria from crisis communication research rather than opinion. A lessons or recommendations aspect looks for conclusions that follow from the analysis. Sources must be credible and cited in APA style, and the reference list has to match. Strong papers link every judgment in the evaluation back to the classification.
D649 Task 1 help: what sends it back
Crisis analyses are returned most often when the writer judges the response before classifying the crisis. Without a classification, there is no standard for saying an apology was needed or a defense was enough. Place theory first, then evaluate. A second mistake is vagueness about timing; a response was slow only if you can say how many hours passed and what happened meanwhile. Third, papers often ignore employees and channels. The people who answer phones and the platforms your audience uses decide whether a message lands at all. Keep hindsight in check as well. Judge each decision by what the organization knew at the time, and note when new information changed the right answer, as the leaked vendor warning does in this sample.
Get a D649 Task 1 example written to your instructions
Send the task instructions and rubric aspects from your D649 course of study. We write a custom crisis response analysis to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
More D649 papers
Other Business (BS) sample papers
- D469 Task 1 Quality Improvement Presentation
- D358 Task 1 Global HR Process Plan
- D640 Task 1 Feedback Reflection and Plan
- D079 Task 2 Operations and Change Analysis
D649 Task 1 questions, answered
Which theory should I use for D649 Task 1?
Situational crisis communication theory is a common choice because it links the type of crisis to the response it calls for. Image repair theory and published best practices work well alongside it for judging specific messages.
Can I analyze a real company crisis in D649?
Yes, many students choose a documented public crisis. Use reliable sources for the timeline and statements, cite them, and focus your writing on analysis rather than retelling the news coverage.
How detailed should the D649 crisis timeline be?
Detailed enough to judge timing. Dates, hours between key events and the order of statements let you show whether the response was fast, slow or out of sequence, which is often the core of the evaluation.
Is the D649 electric cooperative case real?
No. The cooperative, its members and its statements are a composite written for this sample, while the crisis communication research that the analysis applies is real and listed in the references.
Where can I find a free D649 Task 1 sample paper?
You are on it. The crisis response analysis runs in full above, and the notes in the margin flag why each part scores well. Send your own crisis case and D649 instructions if you want a first custom draft at no cost.