In the summer of 1993, the makers of Pepsi and Diet Pepsi found themselves in a public relations nightmare. A local Tacoma, Washington couple claimed a hypodermic needle was found in a Diet Pepsi can. Numerous accusations in multiple cities were reported across the country and Pepsi’s alleged product tampering was front page news for seven brutal days. Immediately PepsiCo Corporation took on an offensive strategic campaign in order to combat the negative backlash from the syringe incident. Time was of the essence during the crisis.
The reports of the alleged product tampering appeared in news reports on June 9, the same day Pepsi’s local bottling corporation; Alpac along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and local health officials began an investigation into the claim. “The plant was opened to the media and the plant owner, manager, and quality assurance manager were made available to the press” (Center & Jackson, 2003, p. 328). The three major factors in Pepsi’s effective communication strategy was that the company took an offensive approach, the company dealt strictly with the facts and evidence and maintained open lines of communication with its publics.
The PepsiCo Corporation faced the problem head-on and maintained open communication with the media, consumers and FDA. Pepsi’s response team had round the clock employees that were available to address the barrage of questions and concerns from the media and the consumers. During this crisis the importance of fact-based answers to questions was a vital key to effective communication. The response teams gave information that was supported by evidence, all the while polling Pepsi’s public image as the crisis unfolded, joining two essential techniques; damage control and risk assessment.
Pepsi’s Publics Pepsi’s public relations campaign was focused toward the corporation’s internal public as well as external public. The internal public consisted of all levels of PepsiCo employees from the bottling plant workers to the executive board members to the distributors. A cleaver maneuver of the PR campaign was to develop a simple explanation of the can filling process in efforts to contrast a logical streamlined process in comparison to the illogical bizarre accusations. The first stage of the campaign was an internal investigation, then education directed to both publics.
The external public was the media, consumers, customers of the alleged tampering, and third party investigating agencies. Communications Impact The communication strategy was to assure the public that Pepsi maintained safe bottling plants, without pointing the finger or adverting responsibility. The effort was successful and had a major impact on the target public. Pepsi effectively used the same weapon that was used against them during the crisis. Television had brought the crisis into 100 million American homes and television would be Pepsi’s best opportunity to expose the folly of the reports.
Image confronted image. Pepsi public affairs team had conducted nearly 2,000 interviews within the week (Center & Jackson, 2003, p. 329). In Hindsight Could Pepsi have done things differently? Hindsight is 20/20 but going into the crisis with the information the PepsiCo Corporation had at the time, the company did well as proven by the company’s triumph of the Public Relations Society competition winning the “Best in Silver Anvil” in 1994 (Center & Jackson, 2003). No matter which strategy Pepsi would have taken the plan would come under scrutiny.
Some critics thought that Pepsi should have addressed the matter the first day the accusations were made; this would have been a false move. Going into a crisis and making rash conclusions and reactionary responses without evidence to support the claims can be more damaging than the incident itself. In 1982 the Tylenol Company set a precedent that made product recalls the display of a company’s commitment to safety but the key difference between the Tylenol crisis and Pepsi crisis was in the evidence.
There was a legitimate health concern with the Tylenol crisis that could be supported by evidence and with the Pepsi crisis there were no actual reports of injury or damage by any of the alleged victims. Most critics will have an opinion but under similar circumstances other companies have done far worse, most notably the Wendy’s fast food chain in their handling of the infamous “finger in the chili” incident. Wendy’s focused on pointing fingers and avoiding responsibility whereas Pepsi faced the problem and held steadfast to the facts and in the end it showed the company’s integrity and renewed its credibility.
(Center & Jackson) Tools and Techniques Used to Fight the Fire The tools that were used to defend the Pepsi Corporation were the same tools that were used against the company. Mainly a video showing the streamlined, safe can filing process was produced and released to the media. A response team was employed round the clock to address the massive number of questions and complaints. It was important to address the negative press through a variety of media in order to combat the negative imagery that bombarded the press.
“Video news releases, audiotapes, press releases, charts, and diagrams of the production process and photos for external and internal distribution” (Center & Jackson, 2003, p. 328). The technique was to have a swift, fact-based response. The company also took the claims seriously, owned up to the responsibility of the crisis and engaged a unified tactical response. The Pros and Cons The factors that were on the side of the PepsiCo Corporation were the facts; evidence supported the defense that Pepsi was not at fault.
Ingenuity was on the side of Pepsi; the PR campaign was offensive and maintained proactive strategy throughout the ordeal. The FDA; a trusted third-party supported the Corporation and the company maintained open lines of communication for the consumers, media and investigating agencies. Perception is King when it comes to public image and the media helped make the Pepsi name synonymous with contamination and product tampering. Negative imagery spread like a wildfire over the course of a few days.
Initially the main factor against the Pepsi Corporation was the media, but later the pendulum swung in favor of the company as it successfully turned a disadvantage into an asset. Recent legitimate product tampering gave the validity to the accusations and fueled the publics distrust of large corporations therefore even a claim as ludicrous as syringes in unopened Pepsi cans were not a total stretch of truth in the publics opinion. Technology, Globalization and Present-day The PepsiCo Corporation thought the crisis would have a local affect and to their surprise it was a national crisis because of the media’s role in the incident.
Considering technology, the internet, globalization of markets, and lightning speed information distribution; if the same incident happened present-day then the crisis would be global media frenzy. If the company would have only prepared a local plan, that plan would have proven to be insignificant to the overall effort and would have been detrimental to the public perception and reputation of the company. The same steps that were taken in 1993 would be the correct actions to take today to address the widespread unsubstantiated media assault. Overall the facts and evidence prevailed in this historical PR benchmark.
Short-term security was restored by proper damage control and long term trust was reestablished through Pepsi’s strategic crisis management campaign. The PepsiCo Corporation handled crisis head-on, without marketing tricks and just stuck to the facts. The company handled the crisis strategically and efficiently and did not become entangled in a defensive uphill battle. PepsiCo survived the crisis with a solid public image and was even recognized for proper handling of the ordeal.
Reference: Center, A. , & Jackson, P. (2003). Public Relations Practices: Managerial Case Studies and Problems (6th ed. ). NJ: Prentice-Hall.