Introduction When a crisis occurs in most situations the responding organization is not ready prepared. These crises can affect the financials, political, legal, and have government (FDA) intervene, when not handle with immediate resolve. Also the media can portray to public and emphasize the issue at hand in repeat so many times that the public will raise concerns. In this case study “There’s a Syringe in my Pepsi Can” a system could have been in place to detect early on so no other issues are added to the crises.
Effective communications is the solution to Pepsi’s management crises. In this case study a consumer made a report and claimed to found a syringe in an unopened Pepsi can. This took place on June 9, 1993 in Tacoma, Washington. After that report many more reports of objects in Pepsi cans surface. Within weeks this issue reached national level. Pepsi immediately activated there crises management plan and showed information that it was impossible for a syringe to enter a Pepsi can. The CEO and managers explained there safety procedures in the process of canning to the media.
When public fears was settled the crises was over. Pepsi defended there position from the very beginning that put the company back to good standing. The Pepsi’s crises management team expressed effective communication throughout this ordeal which earned the respect of customers/public. Part B The Publics The interesting thing about this case study was how easily they were persuaded to believing that a reputable company would compromise their public standing by not securing the safety of its customers.
The case study mentions many of PepsiCo’s publics, some internal but most were external. The case study defined four of the key publics that PepsiCo needed to address in this crisis situation. The publics were the news media, the customers who purchased the product, consumers, and employees and local Pepsi-Cola bottlers. Based on the case study, the customer public had complete control over the attitudes and state of mind of the nation. Statements made by 54 customers who purchased diet pepsi were considered to be truthful before investigation was underway.
PepsiCo experienced disloyalty among a select few of its customers who chose to risk prosecution for personal gain. The 54 customers who were prosecuted may not have had a prior understanding of the magnitude of their actions but learned a valuable lesson through the consequences. Internal and External Differentiation Each of the four public groups mentioned above all are in the category of external publics. However, this case study mentions many more of each of the different publics who were involved in adding and eliminating the gas that fueled the fire.
PepsiCo’s internal publics are: President Craig Weatherup Public Affairs Department Legal Department Consumer Relations Department Sales and Marketing Department Manufacturing Experts Employees (canning plant, filling line, production line) PepsiCo’s external customers were more in number. It was critical for PepsiCo to address each of them in a timely manner once results of the investigation were brought out in the open. PepsiCo’s external publics are:
Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Scientific and Regulatory Affairs (SRA) Consumers Health Officials Television Stations Media Newspapers Law Enforcement Authorities Alpac Corporation (PepsiCo’s bottling company) Grocers and Convenience Stores In the case study it appears that the media contributed to the crisis situation by reporting the position of the customers first before speaking to PepsiCo representatives to discover the facts of the situation.
Although the allegations against PepsiCo were unfounded, some external publics caused the consumer to question the integrity the company which in turn also creates doubt in the conduct of senior management. However, PepsiCo had the support of publics FDA, SRA, law enforcement officials, and employees who were more concerned about getting to the bottom of the situation and protecting its reputation. Each of these representative groups, internal and external publics, contributed in some way to the resolutions of the crisis.
Not all acts were appropriate but they contributed just the same. Even though PepsiCo attempted to minimize the impact on public relations, the stories placed in the media grew to high levels. However, PepsiCo made every effort to communicate with both internal and external publics and made every effort to change its image back to its previous state. References Center, A. , & Jackson, P. (2003). Public Relations Practices: Managerial Case Studies and problems, 6TH ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from UOP rEsource May 16, 2007.