1. The Arla Company did a good job in overcoming potential barriers through this one-way communication method. This is evident in the way the company acknowledged that their local newspaper was responsible for the controversy and is in fact at fault, yet they are included to be blamed. They also agree and understand that the public have every right to feel offended and outraged by the newspaper’s actions. In addition, they also shared their opinion about the matter, clearly indicating that they are opposed to it as well. Although this statement was delivered through a one-way communication route, it gives the audience perspective from the company, seeing as to how the company is being blamed. It also provides them with appreciation, in the sense that the Arla Company are being understanding of the public and are trying to clear up the issue as much as possible.

2. Personally, I think that the most impressive statement in the article is as follows: “However, Arla’s business in the Middle East has been affected not by its own actions, but because of the actions of others.” This is because this statement is true and it is what the entire article is centered about. The local newspaper’s actions have not only caused an issue for their business but for other Danish businesses as well, in this case, the Arla Company. This simple statement reinforces the truth, seeing as that the actions of the controversy were never indeed initiated by the Arla Company.

3. I believe that the article played a big part in ending the boycott. This is because they have given the public an insight into their Company’s issue, by witnessing the company side with the public and the effort they are putting into supporting them. Having this opportunity allows the public to understand the issue from their perspective which could be a major cause of ending the boycott.