Findus Fails Crisis Test

Electric Airwaves' Crisis & Issues Management Director, Jonathan Hemus,explained to the Huffington Post how Findus had got its response to finding 100% horsemeat in its beef lasagne so wrong. See below for extracts below the article and key learning points for PROs:

On the afternoon of Friday 8th, frozen food giant Findus reiterated its apology over some of its beef lasagne products containing horse meat, saying it was "sorry that we have let people down".

Findus also confirmed it carried out a full product recall on Monday, two days before DNA tests confirmed that some of its products contained up to 100% horse meat and it alerted the Food Standards Agency, but chose to ignore claims by Labour MP Tom Watson that it sent a letter to retailers on Monday warning that a France-based supplier had told it there may be problems with raw materials delivered since 1 August 2012.

A Findus spokesman said: "At Findus UK our first priority is our customers and providing quality products they can trust. But we know that many people have been concerned by the news this week that tests have shown that some of our Findus beef lasagne has been found to contain horse meat.
"We understand those concerns; we are sorry that we have let people down."

But is saying sorry enough? Can Findus ever restore consumers' faith in its frozen food convenience foods, following this disaster?

Jonathan Hemus, said:

"Findus does have a statement about the situation at the bottom of its homepage and on its contact us page, but it looks as though it has been hastily put there without any thought as to its design or positioning, and it lacks a heading of any kind."

"Findus's homepage also proudly proclaims that it uses 'only the best ingredients' and another page exclaims 'you can trust us' alongside a picture of a 'beef' lasagne. On a normal day, these messages are fine. Today, they look hollow, unprofessional, or even bad taste jokes."

Hemus also criticised the firm's use (or lack of) social media - Findus' twitter profile hasn't been used for more than two years. There's also a link to Facebook, but that does not lead to a Findus page either.



Findus's twitter profile as of 8 February, 2013
Findus also reportedly failed to find a spokesman to speak on Radio 4, meaning an opinion-forming programme discussed the situation without the company having any opportunity to shape that discussion.

"If you manage a food company, one day your products will be contaminated. If you run an airline, one day, one of your planes will crash. If you make cars, one day there will be a safety recall. And all of these situations are recoverable. But only if you engage in crisis management planning and training beforehand."

Another option is to throw a lot of money at the situation. In 2006, Cadbury's admitted one of its plants had been contaminated with salmonella. A report commissioned by the government's Food Standards Agency found that Cadbury was using an out-of-date approach to risk assessment and product testing for salmonella contamination. It took six months for Cadbury's to come clean about the contamination. It then spent £10 million recalling the faulty goods, but another £10m was spent on advertising costs for a major new campaign and "manufacturing improvements".

Hemus told the Huffington Post UK the juxtaposition of a wholesome, family brand like Cadbury against corporate behaviour which seemed to put business interests ahead of health, led to the largest ever ratings drop for a brand in the YouGov Brand Index.

"When confronted by a product recall crisis, brands and business must act quickly – over-act if necessary - to reassure customers that they are safe and that the company cares." They should also communicate pro-actively, provide a media spokesperson, post information to the company website, tweet frequently and offer a telephone hotline.

Lawyers may advise executives never to use the word 'sorry', but it resonates with the general public, so brands should consider it. And ultimately, the brand should behave consistently with its values.

"If you position yourself as a caring, wholesome brand, you'd better live these values in the crisis. Act contrary to them and the damage can be huge," Hemus concluded.

We live in Financial Times - but online

And if you want to know how the Editor of The Financial Times sees the future of his newspaper, you can read if here on the 125th anniversary of the first issue. You can read the article here.

Findus and horsemeat: how social media keeps a story on the boil

Here's a nice Little piece by Charles Arthur, the Guardian's Technology Editor. Sympathetic to the struggle of PROs to contain the spread of stories on social media - whether they incorrect or in need of a balancing response - he concludes that the battle for reputation requires constant action. You can read the article here

Getting Your Crisis Statement Right - Even For Online Crises

Here's a nice storm in a crisis teacup underlining the importance of organisations having a clear social media policy AND clarity in your crisis media statements.

Last week, the pastor of an American church in St. Louis went with her congregation to a restaurant, part of a chain, called Applebee's. The receipt for the meal added an 18% tip which is restaurant policy for parties of eight or more. While the 18% tip was paid by the party, the Pastor, Alois Bell, crossed out the 18%, scribbled: “I give God 10% why do you get 18?”, and left no tip herself (although subsequently claimed to have left $6 cash on the table).

An employee at the Applebee's restaurant took a picture of the receipt and posted it to Reddit where it went viral.


The image shown above has been cropped but the original picture posted to Reddit showed the pastor's signature. The woman who shared the picture (and was not the same person who served Bell and her party) was fired by the franchisee running that branch of Applebee's and a routine press rlease issued:

"Our Guests’ personal information – including their meal check – is private, and neither Applebee’s nor its franchisees have a right to share this information publicly. We value our Guests’ trust above all else. Our franchisee has apologized to the Guest and has taken disciplinary action with the Team Member for violating their Guest’s right to privacy. This individual is no longer employed by the franchisee."

Cue social media outrage that the employee had been fired when the guest's behaviour was widely considered to be rude which was then picked up by traditional media (e.g. ABC News). As the criticism mounted, the former employee claimed that she didn't break any specific guidelines in the company handbook and that Applebee's would rather lose a dedicated employee than lose an angry customer.

Only then did Applebee's President, Mike Archer, issue a (well written) statement sharing a portion of the company's social media policy, which expressly forbids employees from breaching customer privacy without permission from an executive. He added: "I recognize that you may still disagree with the decision, but I hope this may have provided some additional insight".

If the specific guidance from the privacy and social media policy had been shared at the start of the issue and the first statement had maybe used a few more personal pronouns ("you, our guest's privacy"), I suspect that this would have been nipped in the bud. But in treating the issue as a 'business as usual' type incident rather than thinking through the negatives and forestalling them, Applebee's has had to waste time and resources all weekend fighting an unnecessary PR fire.

 

Andrew Caesar-Gordon